Pharmacists in primary care in Scotland: a mixed-methods exploration of pharmacists' perceptions of a national educational resource package. (1st April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Preston, K; Mueller, T; Weir, N M; Newham, R; Bennie, M
• Is Part Of: International journal of pharmacy practice. Volume 30(2022)Supplement 1
• Page Start: i11
• Page End: i11
• Publication Date: 2022-04-01
• Subjects: Pharmacy -- Practice -- Periodicals; 615.1
• DOI: 10.1093/ijpp/riac021.015
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0961-7671

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: There is growing pressure on primary care, which has resulted in an increased number of clinical pharmacists working within the setting. To help support this growing workforce in their role and with their development, several countries have created educational resources. Within Scotland, an educational resource package was created for pharmacists working in General Practice, containing a Competency and Capability Framework, an online platform and educational and clinical supervision. The implementation of these resources in Scotland has not been evaluated thus far, therefore it is unclear to what extent they may support and facilitate pharmacists in their professional role. Aim: The aim of this project was to assess pharmacists' perceptions of the educational resource package available to General Practice pharmacists in Scotland. Methods: A mixed-methods study comprising an online questionnaire and semi-structured telephone interviews was undertaken between July and October 2019. The questionnaire sought to provide a more representative overview, with the interviews designed to gain an in-depth understanding, to support the development of recommendations to improve the educational resource package. A previously validated, online questionnaire (1) was used to explore pharmacists' view on the adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the educational resources based on Proctor's model of implementation outcomes (2); similarly, the semi-structured telephone interviews explored pharmacists' experiences with the resources, in addition to inquiring about its adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. The questionnaire included a Likert scale and free-text questions; quantitative responses were summarised, whereas the qualitative answers underwent a content analysis directed by Proctor's implementation outcomes. The interview results were structured using the framework approach, with the data undergoing a thematic or summative content analysis. Results: Overall, 52 pharmacists completed the questionnaire and 12 participated in the interviews. The results indicated widespread adoption and acceptance of the educational resource package. The level of acceptance was influenced by the perceived purpose of completing the resources, such as if they believed it provided development opportunities. Its appropriateness depended on the pharmacist's individual situation since previous experiences and current job role differed. Additionally, several barriers complicated the feasibility of the resources, such as insufficient support and guidance. Conclusion: The adoption and acceptance of the educational resource package for General Practice pharmacists in Scotland indicated its suitability for supporting their role; however, further facilitation would enhance their engagement with the resources, and potentially improve their perception of its appropriateness and feasibility. Despite the limited sample size, the study provided an in-depth understanding of general practice pharmacists perceptions of the educational recourse package, based on an established model. References: (1) Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65-76. (2) Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017; 12(1): 108.