Interprofessional communication between community pharmacists and general practitioners: a qualitative study
- 745 Downloads
Background While collaboration between community pharmacists (CPs) and general practitioners (GPs) is essential to provide comprehensive patient care, their communication often is scarce and hampered by multiple barriers. Objective We aimed to assess both professions’ perceptions of interprofessional communication with regard to content and methods of communication as a basis to subsequently develop best-practice recommendations for information exchange. Setting Ambulatory care setting in Germany. Method CPs and GPs shared their experience in focus groups and in-depth interviews which were conducted using a semi-structured interview guideline. Transcribed recordings were assessed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Main outcome measure Specification of existing barriers, CPs’/GPs’ general perceptions of interprofessional communication and similarities and differences regarding prioritization of specific information items and how to best communicate with each other. Results Four focus groups and fourteen interviews were conducted. Seven internal (e.g. professions were not personally known to one another) and nine external barriers (e.g. mutual accessibility) were identified. Ten organizational, eight medication-related, and four patient-related information items were identified requiring interprofessional communication. Their relevance varied between the professions, e.g. CPs rated organizational issues higher than GPs. Both professions indicated communication via phone to be the most frequently used method of communication. Conclusion CPs and GPs opinions often differ. However, communication between CPs and GPs is perceived as crucial suggesting that a future concept has to offer standardized recommendations, while leaving CPs and GPs room to adjust it to their individual needs.
KeywordsCommunity pharmacist General practitioner Germany Focus groups Interprofessional communication Qualitative research
We thank all GPs and CPs for participation in our study, Dr. Cornelia Mahler and Dr. Alexander Send for English language editing and Lisa Kohl, Lisa Veitinger, and Daniela Tschada for compiling the initial transcript of the FG and the IDI.
The Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology received financial funding from “Förderinitiative Pharmazeutische Betreuung e.V. (Berlin, Germany)”. The funding had no influence on the conduct of the study, the analysis and interpretation of the data and the writing of the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.The World Medical Association, INC. WMA statement on the relationship between physicians and pharmacists in medical therapy. 2010. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/m33/Physicians_and_Pharmacists_in_Medical_Theraphy-Oct2010.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2016.
- 2.Hirsch JD, Steers N, Adler DS, Kuo GM, Morello CM, Lang M, Singh RF, Wood Y, Kaplan RM, Mangione CM. Primary care-based, pharmacist–physician collaborative medication-therapy management of hypertension: a randomized, pragmatic trial. Clin Ther. 2014;36:1244–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.ARMIN Project. http://www.arzneimittelinitiative.de/grundlagen/. Accessed 4 April 2016.
- 17.ARMIN Project (engl). https://www.abda.de/fileadmin/assets/pdf/ARMIN_FIP.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2016.
- 18.ABDA (Bundesvereinigung deutscher Apothekerverbände e.V.). Pilot project: Ambulatory detoxification of patients being addicted to benzodiazepines with cooperation between pharmacists and general practitioners. 2013. http://www.abda.de/benzoprojekt.html. Accessed 29 April 2016.
- 21.National Health Service. Guidance on the Medicines Use Review (MUR) service. 2013. http://www.nhsemployers.org/~/media/Employers/Documents/Primary%20care%20contracts/Pharmacy/MUR%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2016.
- 23.Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Guidelines for pharmacists providing Home Medicines Review (HMR) services. 2011. http://www.psa.org.au/download/practice-guidelines/home-medicines-review-services.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2016.
- 24.Pharm-CHF Trial. https://www.pharm-chf.de/mdb/web/. Accessed 30 Sept 2016.
- 25.McGrath SH, Snyder ME, Dueñas GG, Pringle JL, Smith RB, McGivney MS. Physician perceptions of pharmacist-provided medication therapy management: qualitative analysis. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2003;2010(50):67–71.Google Scholar
- 29.Dresing T, Pehl T. Praxisbuch interview & transcription. 4th ed. Marburg: Eigenverlag; 2012.Google Scholar
- 30.Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 11th ed. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag; 2010.Google Scholar
- 35.Bridges DR, Davidson RA, Odegard PS, Maki IV, Tomkowiak J. Interprofessional collaboration: three best practice models of interprofessional education. Med Educ Online. 2011;16:1–10.Google Scholar
- 36.Thom KA, Heil EL, Croft LD, Duffy A, Morgan DJ, Johantgen M. Advancing interprofessional patient safety education for medical, nursing, and pharmacy learners during clinical rotations. J Interprof Care. 2016;30:819–22.Google Scholar
- 42.Bugnon O, Jotterand S, Niquille Charrière A, Ruggli M, Herzig L. Physicians-pharmacists quality circles: shared responsibility of the freedom of prescription. Rev Med Suisse. 2012;8:1044–8.Google Scholar
- 44.Urologisches Netzwerk Bonn e.V.: Qualitätszirkel. http://www.u-n-b.de/qualitaetszirkel.htm. Accessed 7 Sept 2016.