Pharmaceutical care and its relationship to prescribing behaviour of general practitioners

Objective To study the correlation between pharmaceutical care and prescribing routines of general practitioners (GPs).Methods Cross-sectional study; 201 pharmacies, 408 general practices, The Netherlands, 2000/2001. The variation in prescribing behaviour was characterised using 20 validated prescribing indicators based on general practice guidelines. The general construct ‘adherence to guidelines’ served as the dependent variable and was formed by summing the scores of the prescribing indicators. Four possible determinants of the variation were determined on the basis of survey questions: the construct ‘the pharmacist’s attitude towards pharmaceutical care’, and three partial constructs derived from the pharmacist’s care-providing function: the care for the individual patient, the cooperation with general practitioners and the registration of the care provided. A multiple linear regression analysis was then performed.Main outcome measure The weighted score for the prescribing indicators.Results The weighted average score for the prescribing indicators was 65% (SD 3.7). The response rate to the survey was 71%. The pharmacist’s attitude to pharmaceutical care, as well as the degree to which the pharmacist provided care for the individual patient, the degree to which he cooperated with the general practitioner and the degree to which he registered the care provided were not correlated with the ‘adherence to guidelines’ by the general practitioner with whom the pharmacist frequently cooperated.Conclusion Variations between general practitioners in the quality of prescribing, as measured by their adherence to guidelines, were not correlated with pharmaceutical care by the pharmacist with whom they cooperated on a day-to-day basis.     

Doctors perceptions of the influences on their prescribing: a comparison of general practitioners based in rural and urban Australia

OBJECTIVES: To compare and contrast the influences on prescribing perceived by general practitioners in an urban area of Queensland, Australia, to those perceived by general practitioners in rural Queensland. METHOD: An investigation was undertaken with a group of general practitioners in urban and rural locations of Australia. A self-administered questionnaire requested the doctors' demographic details and their opinions on statements about prescribing. They also reported their prescribing of six recently marketed drugs. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-two general practitioners from rural areas of Queensland (55% of the eligible population of these doctors) and one hundred and thirty-seven from the urban area (54% response) returned the surveys. The urban group were older and had more experience as general practitioners. Similarities and differences were detected between the two groups. The urban group considered that continuing medical education had a lesser influence on their prescribing than the rural group. The rural general practitioners were more likely than the urban doctors to agree that their information needs on prescribing were not being met in their practice, that their practice location had an effect on their prescribing (and also an effect on their prescribing of new drugs) as well as the remoteness of the patient's address having an effect. The rural doctors agreed more than the urban doctors that they try to avoid drugs requiring a significant amount of monitoring, reinforced by their agreement that they would be more likely to prescribe a newly marketed drug requiring less monitoring. When relating to whether the doctors in the two groups had reported initiating a supply of specific newly marketed drugs, independent of a specialist, rural general practitioners had initiated fewer of these selected new medicines. CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted some of the differences in perceptions of doctors on the influences on prescribing in rural relative to urban areas of Australia. An understanding of these perceptions will allow targeting and development of location-relevant prescribing interventions and messages.     

Collaboration in chronic care: unpacking the relationship of pharmacists and general medical practitioners in primary care

Objectives The objective of this research was to gain deeper understanding of the expectations, experiences and perceptions of Australian general medication practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists around collaboration in chronic illness (asthma) management in the primary care setting. Methods A qualitative research methodology utilising a semi‐structured interview guide, based on theory and an empirical approach, was used to fulfill the objectives of this study. Face‐to‐face interviews with pharmacists (n = 18) and GPs (n = 7) were recorded, transcribed and coded for concepts and themes. Relationships between concepts and themes were examined and used to describe the nature of collaborative relationships in the primary care setting. Key findings A relationship between GPs and pharmacists currently exists although there is minimal collaboration and there are several areas of practice and patient care in which the two professional groups are mismatched. At the same time, this research uncovered key aspects of the GP–pharmacist relationship, which could be used to develop more collaborative relationships in the future. The findings from this study were evaluated in light of the Collaborative Working Relationships model and published literature. Conclusions A model for the development of GP–pharmacist relationship has been postulated which articulates the dynamic nature of professional relationship in primary care and highlights a pathway to more collaborative practice. Future research should focus on further developing this model.     

The influence of an academic representative on prescribing by general practitioners.

1. The effect of providing information about medicines by a short 'sales' interview between individual general practitioners and an 'academic representative' on prescribing was investigated. 2. The promotional campaign was designed to encourage a rational approach to prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents in an intervention group of 101 general practitioners selected at random from the Leeds Family Practitioner Committee (FPC). The remaining general practitioners in the Leeds FPC acted as a reference group. 3. The prescribing data for each group for 5 months immediately prior to and 5 months following intervention were compared. 4. Intervention produced a significant increase (P less than 0.005) in the prescribing cost of ibuprofen, the non-steroidal promoted as first choice agent, which was sustained for at least 5 months. 5. Prescribing of the second choice agent, piroxicam, decreased in the reference group but not in the intervention group. 6. There was a decrease in the average prescribing cost of pounds 6.60 per doctor per month in the intervention group compared with the reference group.     

General practitioners’ perceptions of the current status and pharmacists’ contribution to primary care in Iceland

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy - Background For the past several years pharmacists’ responsibilities have expanded globally from traditional tasks of dispensing medications to...