Community pharmacy & primary care integration: qualitative study on stakeholders' opinions and interventions.

IF 3.3 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2024-09-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20523211.2024.2395551
Amaia Urionagüena, Celia Piquer-Martinez, Shalom Isaac Benrimoj, Begoña Calvo, Victoria Garcia-Cardenas, Fernando Martinez-Martinez, Miguel Angel Gastelurrutia
{"title":"Community pharmacy & primary care integration: qualitative study on stakeholders' opinions and interventions.","authors":"Amaia Urionagüena, Celia Piquer-Martinez, Shalom Isaac Benrimoj, Begoña Calvo, Victoria Garcia-Cardenas, Fernando Martinez-Martinez, Miguel Angel Gastelurrutia","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2024.2395551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health systems worldwide are under pressure. Integration seems a possible solution to improve healthcare systems efficiency. This research aims to gather stakeholders' opinions on integrating community pharmacy and the primary healthcare system and secondly to explore and prioritise interventions for an initial integration plan.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using a constructivist qualitative research approach, a two-phase qualitative study was conducted in the Basque Country, Spain. Thematic analysis using NVivo® was undertaken on data gathered during focus groups and semi-structured interviews (phase 1). During phase 2, a nominal group prioritised potential integration interventions identified in phase 1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study amalgamated findings from four focus groups and nine interviews, revealing six themes. Stakeholders had a diverse understanding of integration, associating the term mainly with collaboration, communication or cooperation. Community pharmacies were positively perceived; however, their commercial and privately owned nature was of concern. Remuneration methods for pharmacists were controversial, with a suggested shift to service-based remuneration. Information availability and barriers such as interprofessional communication gaps were highlighted. The nominal group prioritised, according to importance and feasibility, bidirectional communication development, coordination in using interprofessional protocols and community pharmacist participation in primary healthcare centre meetings as interventions for integrating community pharmacies and primary healthcare centres.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on the opinions of stakeholders, three interventions are proposed to initiate the integration process of community pharmacy and primary care. The implementation of these interventions will need to be negotiated with the relevant authorities and evaluated.</p>","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11382723/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2024.2395551","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health systems worldwide are under pressure. Integration seems a possible solution to improve healthcare systems efficiency. This research aims to gather stakeholders' opinions on integrating community pharmacy and the primary healthcare system and secondly to explore and prioritise interventions for an initial integration plan.

Method: Using a constructivist qualitative research approach, a two-phase qualitative study was conducted in the Basque Country, Spain. Thematic analysis using NVivo® was undertaken on data gathered during focus groups and semi-structured interviews (phase 1). During phase 2, a nominal group prioritised potential integration interventions identified in phase 1.

Results: The study amalgamated findings from four focus groups and nine interviews, revealing six themes. Stakeholders had a diverse understanding of integration, associating the term mainly with collaboration, communication or cooperation. Community pharmacies were positively perceived; however, their commercial and privately owned nature was of concern. Remuneration methods for pharmacists were controversial, with a suggested shift to service-based remuneration. Information availability and barriers such as interprofessional communication gaps were highlighted. The nominal group prioritised, according to importance and feasibility, bidirectional communication development, coordination in using interprofessional protocols and community pharmacist participation in primary healthcare centre meetings as interventions for integrating community pharmacies and primary healthcare centres.

Conclusion: Based on the opinions of stakeholders, three interventions are proposed to initiate the integration process of community pharmacy and primary care. The implementation of these interventions will need to be negotiated with the relevant authorities and evaluated.

社区药房与初级保健整合:利益相关者的意见和干预措施定性研究。
背景:全世界的医疗系统都面临着压力。整合似乎是提高医疗系统效率的一个可行解决方案。本研究旨在收集利益相关者对整合社区药房和初级医疗保健系统的意见,其次探讨初步整合计划的干预措施并确定其优先次序:采用建构主义定性研究方法,在西班牙巴斯克地区开展了一项分两个阶段进行的定性研究。使用 NVivo® 对在焦点小组和半结构式访谈(第 1 阶段)中收集的数据进行了主题分析。在第 2 阶段,一个名义小组对第 1 阶段确定的潜在整合干预措施进行了优先排序:研究综合了四个焦点小组和九次访谈的结果,揭示了六个主题。利益相关者对整合的理解各不相同,主要将其与协作、沟通或合作联系在一起。社区药房得到了积极的评价,但其商业和私营性质也令人担忧。药剂师的薪酬方式存在争议,有人建议转向以服务为基础的薪酬。他们强调了信息的可用性和障碍,如专业间沟通的差距。名义小组根据重要性和可行性,将双向沟通发展、协调使用跨专业协议和社区药剂师参与初级医疗保健中心会议作为整合社区药房和初级医疗保健中心的优先干预措施:根据利益相关者的意见,提出了三项干预措施,以启动社区药房与初级保健的整合进程。这些干预措施的实施需要与相关部门协商并进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信