Community pharmacists' referrals to General Practice with suspected need of antibiotics: an Australian cross-sectional pilot study.

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Paulina Stehlik, Rebekah Moles, Mark Jones, Amanda Murray, Sarira El-Den, Mark Morgan, Chris Del Mar
{"title":"Community pharmacists' referrals to General Practice with suspected need of antibiotics: an Australian cross-sectional pilot study.","authors":"Paulina Stehlik, Rebekah Moles, Mark Jones, Amanda Murray, Sarira El-Den, Mark Morgan, Chris Del Mar","doi":"10.1093/ijpp/riaf009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interventions to reduce antibiotic use focus on general practitioners (GPs) and patient behaviour, not pharmacists, who may inadvertently drive antibiotic expectations by referrals to GPs. No data are available on pharmacist referrals for suspected antibiotic-requiring infections. We conducted a feasibility pilot to provide data for robust sample size calculation and identify areas for further exploration.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Pharmacists and GPs were recruited independently using convenience sampling. They completed prospective data collection on 20 consecutive minor ailment encounters and consultations respectively. Pharmacists recorded patient gender, age, referral reason, and any comments. GPs recorded patient age, gender, reason for visit, and origin of patient referral including self-referral. All data were analysed descriptively. Generalized estimating equation multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate factors that may be associated with pharmacist referral rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 19 pharmacists representing 466 minor ailments encounters, and 19 GPs representing 394 consultations. Pharmacists referred 17% (77/466) of all minor ailments encounters for suspected antibiotic-requiring infections. Comments suggested reasons included upper-respiratory tract, ear nose and throat, and urinary tract infections. Most of suspected antibiotic-requiring infections referrals were to a GP (81%; 62/77). No GP consultations for infection (n = 88) were documented as being referred by a pharmacist; the majority were self-referred (77%; 68/88).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our pilot indicated that exploration of pharmacist referral for antibiotics is feasible and warranted. Future studies should quantify referral rates, reasons for referral, and observed differences between pharmacist and GP results. Our results should be used for the basis of a robust sample size calculation.</p>","PeriodicalId":14284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riaf009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Interventions to reduce antibiotic use focus on general practitioners (GPs) and patient behaviour, not pharmacists, who may inadvertently drive antibiotic expectations by referrals to GPs. No data are available on pharmacist referrals for suspected antibiotic-requiring infections. We conducted a feasibility pilot to provide data for robust sample size calculation and identify areas for further exploration.

Method: Pharmacists and GPs were recruited independently using convenience sampling. They completed prospective data collection on 20 consecutive minor ailment encounters and consultations respectively. Pharmacists recorded patient gender, age, referral reason, and any comments. GPs recorded patient age, gender, reason for visit, and origin of patient referral including self-referral. All data were analysed descriptively. Generalized estimating equation multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate factors that may be associated with pharmacist referral rates.

Results: We recruited 19 pharmacists representing 466 minor ailments encounters, and 19 GPs representing 394 consultations. Pharmacists referred 17% (77/466) of all minor ailments encounters for suspected antibiotic-requiring infections. Comments suggested reasons included upper-respiratory tract, ear nose and throat, and urinary tract infections. Most of suspected antibiotic-requiring infections referrals were to a GP (81%; 62/77). No GP consultations for infection (n = 88) were documented as being referred by a pharmacist; the majority were self-referred (77%; 68/88).

Discussion: Our pilot indicated that exploration of pharmacist referral for antibiotics is feasible and warranted. Future studies should quantify referral rates, reasons for referral, and observed differences between pharmacist and GP results. Our results should be used for the basis of a robust sample size calculation.

社区药剂师向全科医生转介疑似需要抗生素的患者:一项澳大利亚横断面试点研究。
背景:减少抗生素使用的干预措施主要针对全科医生(GPs)和患者行为,而非药剂师。目前还没有关于药剂师转诊疑似需要使用抗生素的感染的数据。我们开展了一项可行性试验,为稳健计算样本量提供数据,并确定进一步探索的领域:方法:药剂师和全科医生采用便利抽样法独立招募。方法:药剂师和全科医生采用方便抽样的方式独立招募,他们分别完成了 20 次连续小病就诊和会诊的前瞻性数据收集。药剂师记录患者的性别、年龄、转诊原因和任何意见。全科医生记录患者的年龄、性别、就诊原因和转诊来源(包括自我转诊)。所有数据均进行了描述性分析。我们采用了广义估计方程多变量逻辑回归法来研究可能与药剂师转诊率相关的因素:我们招募了 19 名药剂师和 19 名全科医生,前者代表 466 次小病就诊,后者代表 394 次咨询。在所有小病就诊中,药剂师转诊了 17% 的疑似需要使用抗生素的感染病例(77/466)。评论提出的原因包括上呼吸道、耳鼻喉和泌尿道感染。大部分疑似需要使用抗生素的感染病例转诊至全科医生(81%;62/77)。全科医生咨询的感染病例(n = 88)中没有由药剂师转诊的记录;大多数都是自我转诊(77%;68/88):讨论:我们的试点表明,探索药剂师转介抗生素是可行的,也是有必要的。未来的研究应量化转诊率、转诊原因以及观察到的药剂师和全科医生转诊结果之间的差异。我们的研究结果应作为稳健计算样本量的基础。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP) is a Medline-indexed, peer reviewed, international journal. It is one of the leading journals publishing health services research in the context of pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, medicines and medicines management. Regular sections in the journal include, editorials, literature reviews, original research, personal opinion and short communications. Topics covered include: medicines utilisation, medicine management, medicines distribution, supply and administration, pharmaceutical services, professional and patient/lay perspectives, public health (including, e.g. health promotion, needs assessment, health protection) evidence based practice, pharmacy education. Methods include both evaluative and exploratory work including, randomised controlled trials, surveys, epidemiological approaches, case studies, observational studies, and qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. Application of methods drawn from other disciplines e.g. psychology, health economics, morbidity are especially welcome as are developments of new methodologies.
×
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