Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
School of Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Fam Pract. 2023 Dec 22;40(5-6):615-628. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmac150.
Pharmacists, as experts in medicines, are increasingly employed in general practices and undertake a range of responsibilities. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are effective in achieving behaviour change, including prescribing. The extent of pharmacist involvement in A&F interventions to influence prescribing is unknown. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of A&F interventions involving pharmacists on prescribing in general practice compared with no A&F/usual care and to describe features of A&F interventions and pharmacist characteristics.
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (Social) Science Citation Indexes, ISI Web of Science) were searched (2012, 2019, 2020). Cochrane systematic review methods were applied to trial identification, selection, and risk of bias. Results were summarized descriptively and heterogeneity was assessed. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted where studies were sufficiently homogenous in design and outcome.
Eleven cluster-randomized studies from 9 countries were included. Risk of bias across most domains was low. Interventions focussed on older patients, specific clinical area(s), or specific medications. Meta-analysis of 6 studies showed improved prescribing outcomes (pooled risk ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.94). Interventions including both verbal and written feedback or computerized decision support for prescribers were more effective. Pharmacists who received study-specific training, provided ongoing support to prescribers or reviewed prescribing for individual patients, contributed to more effective interventions.
A&F interventions involving pharmacists can lead to small improvements in evidence-based prescribing in general practice settings. Future implementation of A&F within general practice should compare different ways of involving pharmacists to determine how to optimize effectiveness.PRISMA-compliant abstract included in Supplementary Material 1.
药剂师作为药物方面的专家,越来越多地在全科医生诊所工作,并承担一系列职责。审核和反馈(A&F)干预措施在实现行为改变方面非常有效,包括处方。但是,药剂师在影响处方的 A&F 干预措施中的参与程度尚不清楚。本综述旨在评估涉及药剂师的 A&F 干预措施与无 A&F/常规护理相比,在全科实践中对处方的有效性,并描述 A&F 干预措施和药剂师特征。
检索电子数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、(社会)科学引文索引、ISI Web of Science)(2012 年、2019 年、2020 年)。采用 Cochrane 系统评价方法对试验进行识别、选择和偏倚风险评估。结果以描述性方式总结,并评估异质性。如果研究在设计和结果上足够同质,则进行随机效应荟萃分析。
纳入来自 9 个国家的 11 项群组随机对照研究。大多数领域的偏倚风险较低。干预措施集中在老年患者、特定临床领域或特定药物上。对 6 项研究的荟萃分析显示,处方结果得到改善(汇总风险比:0.78,95%置信区间:0.64-0.94)。包括对医生的口头和书面反馈或计算机决策支持的干预措施更为有效。接受特定研究培训的药剂师、为医生提供持续支持或审查患者个人处方的药剂师,有助于干预措施更为有效。
涉及药剂师的 A&F 干预措施可以使全科医生实践中的基于证据的处方得到微小改善。未来在全科实践中实施 A&F 时,应比较不同的方法来参与药剂师,以确定如何优化效果。PRISMA 符合摘要包含在补充材料 1 中。