Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pharmacist-led academic detailing intervention in primary care: a mixed methods feasibility study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Academic detailing is a form of continuing medical education in which a trained health professional such as a physician or pharmacist visits prescribers in their practice to provide evidence-based information. While academic detailing has been adopted in other countries, this strategy is not routinely used in Ireland. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability to General Practitioners (GPs) of a pharmacist-led academic detailing intervention in Ireland. Setting General Practice in County Cork, Ireland. Method A mixed methods feasibility study comprising a pharmacist-led academic detailing intervention on urinary incontinence in older people, quantitative data from patient medical records, and qualitative data from focus groups with GPs. The medical records for all patients aged ≥ 65 years who were attending a participating GP with a diagnosis of urinary incontinence were analysed using a before-after approach. The measures of prescribing assessed before and after the intervention were: LUTS-FORTA criteria, Drug Burden Index, and the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale. Focus groups were carried out with GPs who participated in the academic detailing intervention. Main outcome measure The quantitative prescribing patterns of the GPs and their qualitative responses from the focus groups. Results Twenty-three GPs participated in the academic detailing intervention from a selection of different types of general practice. The medical records of 154 patients were analysed. There was minimal or no change in any of the prescribing measures used. Fourteen GPs attended focus groups. GPs considered the topic of urinary incontinence as relevant to general practice. Participants appreciated the succinct nature of the information in the educational materials but expressed a preference for a more easily retrievable format, such as an online version rather than paper-based. Conclusion This study demonstrated that a pharmacist-led academic detailing intervention was acceptable to GPs in Ireland. Further research is needed in a larger population evaluating the impact and cost effectiveness of academic detailing to optimise patient care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, van Kerrebroeck P, Victor A, Wein A. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(2):167–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Levy R, Muller N. Urinary incontinence: economic burden and new choices in pharmaceutical treatment. Adv Therapy. 2006;23(4):556–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Avorn J, Soumerai SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. A randomized controlled trial of academically based “detailing”. N Engl J Med. 1983;308(24):1457–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hartung DM, Hamer A, Middleton L, Haxby D, Fagnan LJ. A pilot study evaluating alternative approaches of academic detailing in rural family practice clinics. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bryant LJM, Coster G, Gamble GD, McCormick RN. The General Practitioner-Pharmacist Collaboration (GPPC) study: a randomised controlled trial of clinical medication reviews in community pharmacy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2011;19(2):94–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pearson SA, Moxey A, Robertson J, Hains I, Williamson M, Reeve J, Newby D. Do computerised clinical decision support systems for prescribing change practice? A systematic review of the literature (1990–2007). BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kolhatkar A, Cheng L, Chan FK, Harrison M, Law MR. The impact of medication reviews by community pharmacists. J Am Pharm Assoc: JAPhA. 2016;56(5):513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hanlon JT, Weinberger M, Samsa GP, Schmader KE, Uttech KM, Lewis IK, Cowper PA, Landsman PB, Cohen HJ, Feussner JR. A randomized, controlled trial of a clinical pharmacist intervention to improve inappropriate prescribing in elderly outpatients with polypharmacy. Am J Med. 1996;100(4):428–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ancker JS, Edwards A, Nosal S, Hauser D, Mauer E, Kaushal R, with the HI. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Arain M, Campbell MJ, Cooper CL, Lancaster GA. What is a pilot or feasibility study? a review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL (2011) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage https://books.google.ie/books/about/Designing_and_Conducting_Mixed_Methods_R.html?id=YcdlPWPJRBcC. Accessed June 2017

  13. Oelke M, Becher K, Castro-Diaz D, Chartier-Kastler E, Kirby M, Wagg A, Wehling M. Appropriateness of oral drugs for long-term treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in older persons: results of a systematic literature review and international consensus validation process (LUTS-FORTA 2014). Age Ageing. 2015;44(5):745–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hilmer SN, Mager DE, Simonsick EM, Cao Y, Ling SM, Windham BG, Harris TB, Hanlon JT, Rubin SM, Shorr RI, Bauer DC, Abernethy DR. A drug burden index to define the functional burden of medications in older people. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(8):781–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gnjidic D, Le Couteur DG, Abernethy DR, Hilmer SN. Drug burden index and Beers’ criteria: impact on functional outcomes in older people living in self-care retirement villages. J Clin Pharm. 2012;52(2):258–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Duran CE, Azermai M, Vander Stichele RH. Systematic review of anticholinergic risk scales in older adults. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(7):1485–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boustani M, Campbell N, Munger S, Maidment I, Fox C. Impact of anticholinergics on the aging brain: a review and practical application. Aging Health. 2008;4(3):311–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ailabouni N, Mangin D, Nishtala PS. Deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medicines: protocol for a Feasibility Trial (DEFEAT-polypharmacy) in residential aged care facilities. BMJ Open. 2017;7(4):e013800.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Tune LE. Anticholinergic effects of medication in elderly patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62(Suppl 21):11–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Leon AC, Davis LL, Kraemer HC. The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45(5):626–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Teare MD, Dimairo M, Shephard N, Hayman A, Whitehead A, Walters SJ. Sample size requirements to estimate key design parameters from external pilot randomised controlled trials: a simulation study. Trials. 2014;15:264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cameron RADT, Richardson S, Ahmed E, Sukumaran A. Lessons from the field: applying the good reporting of a mixed methods study (GRAMMS) framework’. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2013;11(2):53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Laycock J, Holmes DM. The place of physiotherapy in the management of pelvic floor dysfunction. The Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;5(4):194–9.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Anthierens S, Verhoeven V, Schmitz O, Coenen S. Academic detailers’ and general practitioners’ views and experiences of their academic detailing visits to improve the quality of analgesic use: process evaluation alongside a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Allen M, Ferrier S, O’Connor N, Fleming I. Family physicians’ perceptions of academic detailing: a quantitative and qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Soumerai SB, Avorn J. Principles of educational outreach (‘academic detailing’) to improve clinical decision making. JAMA. 1990;263(4):549–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Soumerai SB. Principles and uses of academic detailing to improve the management of psychiatric disorders. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1998;28(1):81–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Thabane L, Hopewell S, Lancaster GA, Bond CM, Coleman CL, Campbell MJ, Eldridge SM. Methods and processes for development of a CONSORT extension for reporting pilot randomized controlled trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bruyndonckx R, Verhoeven V, Anthierens S, Cornelis K, Ackaert K, Gielen B, Coenen S. The implementation of academic detailing and its effectiveness on appropriate prescribing of pain relief medication: a real-world cluster randomized trial in Belgian general practices. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge all the GPs who agreed to participate in this study. Additionally, gratitude is expressed to Alosa Health, who developed the academic detailing intervention “Evaluating and managing urinary incontinence”, and granted the authors permission to use their educational materials for this study. Alosa Health is a US non-profit which specialises in academic detailing. This body evaluates the evidence on clinical topics and synthesises the information into a ‘user-friendly’ format to be used in the interaction between the academic detailer and the clinicians. They provide information to improve clinical decision making and have no affiliation with any pharmaceutical company.

Funding

This research was funded by the Health Research Board SPHeRE/2013/1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, Cavanagh Pharmacy Building, School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Republic of Ireland

    David O. Riordan, Kieran Dalton & Stephen Byrne

  2. Centre for Health Policy and Management, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland

    Eimir Hurley

  3. The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Carol Sinnott

  4. Department of Clinical Therapies, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Republic of Ireland

    Rose Galvin

  5. School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Republic of Ireland

    Patricia M. Kearney

  6. Department of Elderly Medicine, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Republic of Ireland

    James D. Halpin

Authors
  1. David O. Riordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eimir Hurley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carol Sinnott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rose Galvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kieran Dalton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patricia M. Kearney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. James D. Halpin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stephen Byrne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David O. Riordan.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 37 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riordan, D.O., Hurley, E., Sinnott, C. et al. Pharmacist-led academic detailing intervention in primary care: a mixed methods feasibility study. Int J Clin Pharm 41, 574–582 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00787-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00787-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation