Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36945030›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2023

Interprofessional collaboration within general practice teams following the inclusion of non-dispensing pharmacists.

Thilini Sudeshika, Louise S Deeks, Mark Naunton, Gregory M Peterson, Sam Kosari

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Thilini SudeshikaDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia. thilini.salpahewage@canberra.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5500-0353
Louise S DeeksDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia.
Mark NauntonDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia.
Gregory M PetersonDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia.
Sam KosariDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia.

Funding

Capital Health Network: ACT's Primary Health Network 25097479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPharmacists have been included in general practice teams to provide non-dispensing services in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) since 2016. Interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness are key considerations in providing high-quality patient care. These concepts have not been well studied following the inclusion of a pharmacist in general practice teams.

methodsA mixed methods study was conducted to explore collaboration between pharmacists and health professionals in eight general practices in the ACT, where pharmacists were included in their teams. A validated survey instrument was adapted and utilised to assess the changes in interprofessional collaboration over time following the addition of a pharmacist. Another validated survey was utilised to explore team effectiveness at the end of the study. Semi-structured interviews, with a thematic analysis, were conducted with a purposeful sample of general practice staff members to understand the factors influencing the development of interprofessional collaboration.

resultsIn total, 56 and 41 participants completed the baseline and follow-up survey, including 26 who completed both surveys to assess the change in collaboration over time. Interprofessional collaboration scores were high initially and did not change over time. Team effectiveness was also high at the end of the study. Twenty-one individuals participated in interviews, which generated four main interrelated themes related to interprofessional collaboration: professional working relationships, trust, commitment to collaboration, and barriers to collaboration. Trust was integral to professional working relationships and commitment to collaboration. The barriers to collaboration included not having a role description for pharmacists, inadequate interest to initiate working relationships, lack of dedicated time for interaction, lack of utilisation, and poor awareness of pharmacist-led activities in general practice.

conclusionInterprofessional collaboration was initially high and not influenced by the addition of a pharmacist, perhaps reflecting the inherent nature of the general practices willing to include a pharmacist within their team. Introducing a clear job description for pharmacists, and dedicating time to interact with pharmacists, could be beneficial in improving trust and professional working relationships and enhancing collaboration between the pharmacists and other general practice team members.

Indexed as

BarriersGeneral practice pharmacistInterprofessional collaborationProfessional working relationshipsTeam effectivenessTrust

Identifiers

PMID36945030
PMCPMC10031930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read5
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.