Abstract
Objectives
To develop a training programme to enable pharmacists with prescribing rights to assume responsibility for the provision of pharmaceutical care within care homes, a systematic review and narrative synthesis was undertaken to identify reported approaches to training pharmacists and use this literature to identify potential knowledge requirements.
Methods
A PROSPERO‐registered systematic review was performed using key search terms for care homes, pharmacist, education, training and pharmaceutical care. Papers reporting primary research focussed on care of the older person within the care home setting were included. No restrictions were placed on methodology. Two researchers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and papers. Agreement on inclusion was reached through consensus. Data on titles, training and activities undertaken were extracted and knowledge requirements identified. Findings were synthesised and reported narratively.
Key findings
Fifty‐nine papers were included, most of which were uncontrolled service evaluations. Four papers reported an accreditation process for the pharmacist. Thirteen papers reported providing tools or specific training on a single topic to pharmacists. The main clinical and therapeutic areas of activity (requiring codified knowledge) were dementia, pain, antipsychotic and cardiovascular medication. Provision of pharmaceutical care, effective multidisciplinary working and care home staff training represented the main areas of practical knowledge.
Conclusions
Information regarding training and accreditation processes for care home pharmacists is limited. This study provides insight into potential codified and practical knowledge requirements for pharmacists assuming responsibility for the provision of pharmaceutical care within care homes. Further work involving stakeholders is required to identify the cultural knowledge requirements and to develop a training and accreditation process.
To develop a training programme to enable pharmacists with prescribing rights to assume responsibility for the provision of pharmaceutical care within care homes, a systematic review and narrative synthesis was undertaken to identify reported approaches to training pharmacists and use this literature to identify potential knowledge requirements.
Methods
A PROSPERO‐registered systematic review was performed using key search terms for care homes, pharmacist, education, training and pharmaceutical care. Papers reporting primary research focussed on care of the older person within the care home setting were included. No restrictions were placed on methodology. Two researchers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and papers. Agreement on inclusion was reached through consensus. Data on titles, training and activities undertaken were extracted and knowledge requirements identified. Findings were synthesised and reported narratively.
Key findings
Fifty‐nine papers were included, most of which were uncontrolled service evaluations. Four papers reported an accreditation process for the pharmacist. Thirteen papers reported providing tools or specific training on a single topic to pharmacists. The main clinical and therapeutic areas of activity (requiring codified knowledge) were dementia, pain, antipsychotic and cardiovascular medication. Provision of pharmaceutical care, effective multidisciplinary working and care home staff training represented the main areas of practical knowledge.
Conclusions
Information regarding training and accreditation processes for care home pharmacists is limited. This study provides insight into potential codified and practical knowledge requirements for pharmacists assuming responsibility for the provision of pharmaceutical care within care homes. Further work involving stakeholders is required to identify the cultural knowledge requirements and to develop a training and accreditation process.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 207-219 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | International Journal of Pharmacy Practice |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 12 Nov 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jun 2020 |
Bibliographical note
FundingThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not‐for‐profit sectors.
Acknowledgements
This paper was written on behalf of the CHIPPS team all of whom contributed to the preparation of the original grant application, delivery of different elements of the programme of work and management of the project at all stages. The CHIPPS team would like to thank Amy Kirkham and Anna Brown for their significant contribution to the update of the systematic review. The research is also supported by the NIHR Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre. This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) Programme (Grant Reference Number RP‐PG‐0613‐20007). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Keywords
- care home
- education
- pharmacist
- prescriber
- training
Access to Document
- Wright_et_al_systematic_review_IJPP_vor
© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Pharmaceutical Society This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/