Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32124516›Full record

ArticleHealth & social care in the community2020

"Everyone needs to understand each other's systems": Stakeholder views on the acceptability and viability of a Pharmacist Independent Prescriber role in care homes for older people in the UK.

Kathleen Lane, Christine Bond, David Wright, David P Alldred, James Desborough, Richard Holland, Carmel Hughes, Fiona Poland

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & social care in the community, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Kathleen LaneUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0759-6321
Christine BondUniversity of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
David WrightUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
David P AlldredUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
James DesboroughUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Richard HollandUniversity of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Carmel HughesQueen's University, Belfast, UK.
Fiona PolandUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
University of East Anglia · GBQueen's University Belfast · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0613-20007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of an innovative Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP) for care homes to optimise medications has not been examined. We explored stakeholders' views on issues and barriers that the PIP might address to inform a service specification for the PIP intervention in older people's care homes. Focus groups (n = 72 participants) and semi-structured interviews (n = 13) undertaken in 2015 across four sites in the United Kingdom captured the views of doctors, pharmacists, care-home managers and staff, residents and relatives. Stakeholders identified their expectations of what service should be provided by PIPs, what might affect their support for the role, and barriers and enablers to providing the service. Transcripts were analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify key components, which were reviewed by stakeholders in 2016. A PIP service was envisaged offering benefits for residents, care homes and doctors but stakeholders raised challenges including agreement on areas where PIPs might prescribe, contextual barriers in chronic disease management, PIPs' knowledge of older people's medicine, and implementation barriers in integrated team-working and ensuring role clarity. Introducing a PIP was welcomed in principle but conditional on: a clearly defined PIP role communicated to stakeholders; collaboration across doctors, PIPs and care-home staff; dialogue about developing the service with residents and relatives, based on trust and effective communication. To embed a PIP service within increasingly complex care-homes provision, the overarching theme from this research was that everyone must "understand each other's systems".

Indexed as

Professional-Patient RelationsProfessional RoleAgedAged, 80 and overCommunity Pharmacy ServicesDrug PrescriptionsFocus GroupsHealth Services for the AgedHumansInappropriate PrescribingPharmacistsUnited Kingdomcare homesmedicines managementolder peoplepharmaceutical careprescribingqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID32124516
PMCPMC7496840
OpenAlexW3164180206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.