Susan Bidwell, Lee Thompson1. 1. Department of Population Health, Christchurch School of Medicine, PO Box 4345, University of Otago, Christchurch 8053.
Abstract
AIMS: In the context of expectations regarding role evolution, including increased interprofessional working, this study aimed to gain insight into how GPs and pharmacists understood the professional role of the pharmacist and its expansion, extension and calls for increased collaboration. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with 16 GPs and 17 pharmacists were conducted in the Canterbury region. Data were analysed using descriptive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Both groups were generally supportive in principle of more collaborative forms of working. GPs seemed more comfortable with collaboration that involved pharmacists being under the umbrella of the general practice. Pharmacists welcomed greater meaningful collaboration with general practice. Pharmacists did not express any particular view about what types of collaboration they preferred. They did discus tensions resulting from the need to contact doctors over minor prescribing errors. Extension and/or expansion of pharmacist roles were met with caution by GPs, although there was greater acceptance of medicines management. Pharmacists had mixed views about role expansion. Most were keen on role extension, particularly in relation to medicines management. CONCLUSIONS: Attempts to encourage one professional group to expand or extend their practice may be perceived as a threat by those adjacent. Mitigation strategies involve clear communication and acknowledgment that interprofessional trust takes time to establish.
AIMS: In the context of expectations regarding role evolution, including increased interprofessional working, this study aimed to gain insight into how GPs and pharmacists understood the professional role of the pharmacist and its expansion, extension and calls for increased collaboration. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with 16 GPs and 17 pharmacists were conducted in the Canterbury region. Data were analysed using descriptive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Both groups were generally supportive in principle of more collaborative forms of working. GPs seemed more comfortable with collaboration that involved pharmacists being under the umbrella of the general practice. Pharmacists welcomed greater meaningful collaboration with general practice. Pharmacists did not express any particular view about what types of collaboration they preferred. They did discus tensions resulting from the need to contact doctors over minor prescribing errors. Extension and/or expansion of pharmacist roles were met with caution by GPs, although there was greater acceptance of medicines management. Pharmacists had mixed views about role expansion. Most were keen on role extension, particularly in relation to medicines management. CONCLUSIONS: Attempts to encourage one professional group to expand or extend their practice may be perceived as a threat by those adjacent. Mitigation strategies involve clear communication and acknowledgment that interprofessional trust takes time to establish.