The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Improving access to medicines to support palliative care at home: challenges and opportunities

Improving access to medicines to support palliative care at home: challenges and opportunities
Improving access to medicines to support palliative care at home: challenges and opportunities
Background:
Patient and carer access to medicines during the last 12 months of life (end-of-life) is critical for control of symptoms, including pain and distress, and for reducing urgent, unplanned use of healthcare services. However, data from our previous studies suggested that prescription, dispensing, supply and associated information given about medicines are experienced by patients as often difficult, demanding, lacking co-ordination, and involves a multiplicity of professionals. Although evidence is suggestive of patient and carer access problems with traditional service delivery systems, including General Practitioner care, little is known about this. Additionally, there are indications that critical sectors of the end-of-life workforce – palliative care nurse specialists and community pharmacists - are currently under-utilised. Furthermore, whilst there are some promising innovations in end-of-life care models, the impact of these on patient access to medicines, as well as their cost-effectiveness comparative to more traditional delivery models, remains largely un-evaluated. Our recent research also suggests that the supply chain ‘upstream’ may be a contributing factor to the complexity and problems with access experienced by patients.

Aim:
We aimed to provide an evaluation of patient and carer access to medicines at end-of-life within the context of models of service delivery.

Design and data sources:
Multiphase mixed methods design. 1: Systematic literature review. 2: Online questionnaire survey of healthcare professionals delivering end-of-life care. 3: Evaluative, mixed method case studies of service delivery models, including cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. 4: Interviews with community pharmacists and pharmaceutical wholesalers and distributors. 5: An expert consensus-building workshop.

Findings:
A systematic review identified a lack of evidence on service delivery models and patient experiences of accessing medicines at end-of-life. 1327 healthcare professionals completed an online survey. Findings showed General Practitioners remain a predominant route for patients to access prescriptions, but nurses and primary care-based pharmacists are also actively contributing. However, only 42% (160) of Clinical Nurse Specialists and 27% (27) of Community Nurses were trained as prescribers. The majority (58% 142) of prescribing nurses and pharmacists did not have access to an electronic prescribing system. Healthcare professionals’ satisfaction with access to shared patient records to facilitate medicines access was low: 39% (507) were either Not At All or only Slightly satisfied. Respondents perceived there would be a significant improvement in pain control if access to medicines was greater. Case studies highlighted differences in speed and ease of access to medicines between service delivery models. Healthcare professionals’ co-ordination facilitated the access process. The work of co-ordination was frequently burdensome, often due to hard-to-access General Practitioner services and unreliable community pharmacy medicines’ stock. Prescription cost differentials between services were modest but were substantial when accounting for the eligible population over the medium term. The supply chain generally ensured stocks of palliative medicines, but this was underpinned by onerous work by community pharmacists navigating multiple complex systems and wholesaler interfaces.

Conclusion:
Accessing medicines required considerable co-ordination work. Delays in access were linked to service delivery models that were over-reliant on GP prescribing, community pharmacy medicines’ unreliable stock, and Clinical Nurse Specialists’ lack of access to electronic prescribing. Key issues were relationships and team integration, diversifying the prescriber workforce, access to shared records and improved community pharmacy stock.

Implications:
Greater consideration should be given by service delivery commissioners and managers to implementing named end-of-life care co-ordinators.
To expand and diversify the prescriber workforce, funding and support will be required to train more community nurse specialists and generalists to prescribe medicines independently to palliative care patients.
Findings suggest all community-based healthcare professionals need access to electronic prescribing systems.
Findings also point to the need for greater harmonisation of information technology systems so that all healthcare professionals have access to shared electronic patient records across service organisations’ interfaces.
Commissioning telephone support services might offer single-point-of-contact, cost-effective models of provision that co-ordinate medicines access systems, and act as information-giving hubs for end-of-life medicines and services.
Greater integration of community pharmacists within the wider community healthcare team to facilitate information-sharing about patients and their medicines is needed.
Commissioning of community pharmacy services for palliative care would benefit from a shift to a more standardised core list of medicines, with greater and more even distribution of pharmacies or other community hubs holding stock, accessible out-of-hours.
Pharmaceutical wholesalers / distributors need to engage with community pharmacists both individually and collectively for two-way communication about practices that reduce pharmacist work and best support palliative care medicines supply.
Given the potential substantial cost differences between services, additional health economics research is required to generate further evidence to inform service provision decisions.
palliative care, medicines, NIHR
University of Southampton
Latter, Sue
83f100a4-95ec-4f2e-99a5-186095de2f3b
Campling, Natasha
0e0410b0-a9cd-486d-a51f-20d80df04791
Birtwistle, Jacqueline
584beb99-2f59-4762-a936-e00c9945e0aa
Richardson, Alison
3db30680-aa47-43a5-b54d-62d10ece17b7
Bennett, Michael I
b5976b37-b115-4044-9baa-df409c391b17
Meads, David
394bf351-3283-47a6-8bc0-61d54a960b45
Blenkinsopp, Alison
12c72c8c-3d75-432f-9097-4776af11b5d1
Breen, Liz
516211de-dbb6-4381-be29-cdfb0652a58d
Edwards, Zoe
4736f78c-4c87-45ad-b00a-524a8b9bb4fa
Sloan, Claire
5e32524a-c0b4-40ff-a577-e095adb4e053
Miller, Elizabeth
3765aa09-1f41-4bbf-841b-00a4dba06cdb
Ewings, Sean
326656df-c0f0-44a1-b64f-8fe9578ca18a
Santer, Miriam
3ce7e832-31eb-4d27-9876-3a1cd7f381dc
Roberts, Lesley
0a7ebd69-952e-46a9-bd21-366f57d84035
Latter, Sue
83f100a4-95ec-4f2e-99a5-186095de2f3b
Campling, Natasha
0e0410b0-a9cd-486d-a51f-20d80df04791
Birtwistle, Jacqueline
584beb99-2f59-4762-a936-e00c9945e0aa
Richardson, Alison
3db30680-aa47-43a5-b54d-62d10ece17b7
Bennett, Michael I
b5976b37-b115-4044-9baa-df409c391b17
Meads, David
394bf351-3283-47a6-8bc0-61d54a960b45
Blenkinsopp, Alison
12c72c8c-3d75-432f-9097-4776af11b5d1
Breen, Liz
516211de-dbb6-4381-be29-cdfb0652a58d
Edwards, Zoe
4736f78c-4c87-45ad-b00a-524a8b9bb4fa
Sloan, Claire
5e32524a-c0b4-40ff-a577-e095adb4e053
Miller, Elizabeth
3765aa09-1f41-4bbf-841b-00a4dba06cdb
Ewings, Sean
326656df-c0f0-44a1-b64f-8fe9578ca18a
Santer, Miriam
3ce7e832-31eb-4d27-9876-3a1cd7f381dc
Roberts, Lesley
0a7ebd69-952e-46a9-bd21-366f57d84035

Latter, Sue, Campling, Natasha, Birtwistle, Jacqueline, Richardson, Alison, Bennett, Michael I, Meads, David, Blenkinsopp, Alison, Breen, Liz, Edwards, Zoe, Sloan, Claire, Miller, Elizabeth, Ewings, Sean, Santer, Miriam and Roberts, Lesley (2022) Improving access to medicines to support palliative care at home: challenges and opportunities Southampton. University of Southampton 6pp. (doi:10.5258/SOTON/PP0003).

Record type: Monograph (Project Report)

Abstract

Background:
Patient and carer access to medicines during the last 12 months of life (end-of-life) is critical for control of symptoms, including pain and distress, and for reducing urgent, unplanned use of healthcare services. However, data from our previous studies suggested that prescription, dispensing, supply and associated information given about medicines are experienced by patients as often difficult, demanding, lacking co-ordination, and involves a multiplicity of professionals. Although evidence is suggestive of patient and carer access problems with traditional service delivery systems, including General Practitioner care, little is known about this. Additionally, there are indications that critical sectors of the end-of-life workforce – palliative care nurse specialists and community pharmacists - are currently under-utilised. Furthermore, whilst there are some promising innovations in end-of-life care models, the impact of these on patient access to medicines, as well as their cost-effectiveness comparative to more traditional delivery models, remains largely un-evaluated. Our recent research also suggests that the supply chain ‘upstream’ may be a contributing factor to the complexity and problems with access experienced by patients.

Aim:
We aimed to provide an evaluation of patient and carer access to medicines at end-of-life within the context of models of service delivery.

Design and data sources:
Multiphase mixed methods design. 1: Systematic literature review. 2: Online questionnaire survey of healthcare professionals delivering end-of-life care. 3: Evaluative, mixed method case studies of service delivery models, including cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. 4: Interviews with community pharmacists and pharmaceutical wholesalers and distributors. 5: An expert consensus-building workshop.

Findings:
A systematic review identified a lack of evidence on service delivery models and patient experiences of accessing medicines at end-of-life. 1327 healthcare professionals completed an online survey. Findings showed General Practitioners remain a predominant route for patients to access prescriptions, but nurses and primary care-based pharmacists are also actively contributing. However, only 42% (160) of Clinical Nurse Specialists and 27% (27) of Community Nurses were trained as prescribers. The majority (58% 142) of prescribing nurses and pharmacists did not have access to an electronic prescribing system. Healthcare professionals’ satisfaction with access to shared patient records to facilitate medicines access was low: 39% (507) were either Not At All or only Slightly satisfied. Respondents perceived there would be a significant improvement in pain control if access to medicines was greater. Case studies highlighted differences in speed and ease of access to medicines between service delivery models. Healthcare professionals’ co-ordination facilitated the access process. The work of co-ordination was frequently burdensome, often due to hard-to-access General Practitioner services and unreliable community pharmacy medicines’ stock. Prescription cost differentials between services were modest but were substantial when accounting for the eligible population over the medium term. The supply chain generally ensured stocks of palliative medicines, but this was underpinned by onerous work by community pharmacists navigating multiple complex systems and wholesaler interfaces.

Conclusion:
Accessing medicines required considerable co-ordination work. Delays in access were linked to service delivery models that were over-reliant on GP prescribing, community pharmacy medicines’ unreliable stock, and Clinical Nurse Specialists’ lack of access to electronic prescribing. Key issues were relationships and team integration, diversifying the prescriber workforce, access to shared records and improved community pharmacy stock.

Implications:
Greater consideration should be given by service delivery commissioners and managers to implementing named end-of-life care co-ordinators.
To expand and diversify the prescriber workforce, funding and support will be required to train more community nurse specialists and generalists to prescribe medicines independently to palliative care patients.
Findings suggest all community-based healthcare professionals need access to electronic prescribing systems.
Findings also point to the need for greater harmonisation of information technology systems so that all healthcare professionals have access to shared electronic patient records across service organisations’ interfaces.
Commissioning telephone support services might offer single-point-of-contact, cost-effective models of provision that co-ordinate medicines access systems, and act as information-giving hubs for end-of-life medicines and services.
Greater integration of community pharmacists within the wider community healthcare team to facilitate information-sharing about patients and their medicines is needed.
Commissioning of community pharmacy services for palliative care would benefit from a shift to a more standardised core list of medicines, with greater and more even distribution of pharmacies or other community hubs holding stock, accessible out-of-hours.
Pharmaceutical wholesalers / distributors need to engage with community pharmacists both individually and collectively for two-way communication about practices that reduce pharmacist work and best support palliative care medicines supply.
Given the potential substantial cost differences between services, additional health economics research is required to generate further evidence to inform service provision decisions.

Text
Improving access to medicines to support palliative care at home, Policy Brief - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)

More information

Published date: July 2022
Keywords: palliative care, medicines, NIHR

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 468078
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/468078
PURE UUID: 0642b9c7-7c1d-4ecf-9029-61010dbed4ea
ORCID for Sue Latter: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-0973-0512
ORCID for Natasha Campling: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4158-7894
ORCID for Alison Richardson: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3127-5755
ORCID for Sean Ewings: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7214-4917
ORCID for Miriam Santer: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7264-5260

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 01 Aug 2022 16:39
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 03:38

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Sue Latter ORCID iD
Author: Jacqueline Birtwistle
Author: Michael I Bennett
Author: David Meads
Author: Alison Blenkinsopp
Author: Liz Breen
Author: Zoe Edwards
Author: Claire Sloan
Author: Elizabeth Miller
Author: Sean Ewings ORCID iD
Author: Miriam Santer ORCID iD
Author: Lesley Roberts

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×