|
TRAINING COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS FOR A
CLINICAL MEDICATION REVIEW SERVICE
Harris DJ, Senior Lecturer and Lacey J, Pharmacist Teacher/Practitioner,
Pharmacy Academic Practice Unit, University of Derby, Chevin Avenue, Mickleover,
Derby, DE3 9GX (d.harris1@derby.ac.uk).
Introduction
Up to 50% of older people may not be taking their medicine as intended
and 5 to 17% of hospital admissions may be due to adverse drug reactions
or interactions (1). It was planned to provide a pharmaceutical care domiciliary
visiting and medication review service, by trained community pharmacists.
It was considered necessary to provide training to allow the pharmacists
to carry out this new clinical role effectively and communicate confidently
with a wide range of professionals.
Method
Twenty-one community pharmacists, in two cohorts, received extensive
training which included:
- CPPE workshops, or open learning on the
pharmaceutical care of older people and mental health
- An MSc module on Therapeutics for Older
People, equivalent to 150 hours of student effort (2).
This training was delivered by a combination of evening seminars and
students' private study of interactive learning packs.
The aim was to evaluate the MSc module training
as viewed by the pharmacists. Self completion questionnaires, containing
open and closed questions, were posted to twenty-one pharmacists one to
two years after completion of the training, depending on the cohort. The
data was analysed manually.
Results
Fifteen (71%) questionnaires were returned. Despite initial apprehensions
prior to the MSc module training, the pharmacists appreciated the training,
particularly the group clinical sessions with the tutor. All respondents
felt that the training had prepared them 'very well or fairly well' to
carry out this new role and eleven (85%) thought that they would not have
felt 'very confident or confident at all' in providing the service without
the training. They described a positive impact on their relationship with
other health care professionals, with the exception of one respondent
who reported that they still felt remote from their local GP practice.
Seven (47%) had taken on additional clinical roles since completing the
training and five of these thought the training had had a 'high or very
high' influence on their decision to take on new roles.
"I wouldn't have dreamt of being capable of working in a surgery
prior to the training."
Thirteen (87%) reported a positive effect on their Continuing Professional
Development (CPD). In some cases it had helped them identify these needs
but in other cases it had stimulated them to complete additional modules
or a full clinical diploma or start supplementary prescribing training.
Conclusions
The training was valued by the pharmacists, particularly
the group clinical sessions. They considered it useful preparation for
this new clinical role. Overall, it had enhanced their confidence, relationships
with other health care professionals, CPD and encouraged life long learning
as well as starting new clinical roles. All five Primary Care Trusts have
provided funding for the training.
Acknowledgements
Dr Ruth Goldstein, for initiating the MSc Module training.
References
(1) Department of Health. 'Medicines and Older People'. Implementing
medicines related aspects of the National Service Framework for Older
People, March 2001.
(2) University of Derby, Postgraduate MSc in Primary Care Pharmacy; Module:
Therapeutics for Older People
Presented at the HSRPP Conference 2006, Bath
|
