| Autor: |
Moecker, Robert, Fuchs, Andreas, ARMIN Study Group, Eickhoff, Christiane, Mueller, Uta, Schulz, Martin, Braun, Dorit, Maywald, Ulf, Doehler, Catharina, Maetzler, Mike, Auerbach, Anja, Kuhn, Urs Dieter, Moeckel, Anke, Honscha, Christine, Donner, Susanne, Fink, Stefan, Wagner, Kathrin, Meid, Andreas D., Ruff, Carmen, Seidling, Hanna M. |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy; Dec2022, Vol. 44 Issue 6, p1380-1393, 14p |
| Abstrakt: |
Background: Interprofessional medication management in primary care is a recognized strategy for improving medication safety, but it is poorly implemented in Germany. As a pilot project, ARMIN [Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen] was initiated in 2014 to establish better interprofessional medication management between general practitioners and community pharmacists. Aim: The aim of this study was to explore the views of non-participating general practitioners and community pharmacists towards interprofessional medication management within ARMIN and to identify barriers to participation. Method: This was an interview study comprising a series of semi-structured telephone interviews. In total, 36 general practitioners and 15 community pharmacists were interviewed in the period between March and June 2020. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis as an inductive approach and the consolidated framework for implementation research as a deductive approach. Results: Many general practitioners and community pharmacists had a generally positive attitude towards interprofessional medication management. However, various barriers were identified and categorized into five major themes: (I) collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists, e.g. concerning general practitioners' professional sovereignty and pharmacists' fear of jeopardizing their relationship with general practitioners when interfering in therapy; (II) eligibility for participation, e.g., the fact that patients had to be insured with a specific statutory health insurance fund; (III) local circumstances, e.g. many pharmacists could not find a collaborating general practitioner (and vice versa). Moreover, patient demand was low, probably because patients were not aware of the program; (IV) information technology, e.g. concerning the lack of available software and data security concerns; and (V) cost–benefit ratio, e.g. the fact that potential benefits were outweighed by program-associated costs. Conclusion: The perceived discrepancy between positive attitudes and multiple prevalent barriers indicates considerable potential for further interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink