跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT02191111
NCT02191111已完成不适用

A Cluster-randomized Controlled Knowledge Translation Feasibility Study in Alberta Community Pharmacies Using the PARiHS Framework

University of Alberta1 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 10 人开始时间: 2014年7月1日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
入组人数
10
试验地点
1
主要终点
Change in Service Counts From Baseline to End of Intervention Period

研究概览

简要总结

Background: Despite evidence of benefit for pharmacist involvement in chronic disease management, the provision of these services in community pharmacy has been suboptimal. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework suggests that for knowledge translation to be effective, there must be evidence of benefit, a context conducive to implementation, and facilitation to support uptake. We hypothesize that while the evidence and context components of this framework are satisfied, that uptake into practice has been insufficient because of a lack of facilitation. This protocol describes the rationale and methods of a feasibility study to test a facilitated pharmacy practice intervention based on the PARiHS framework, to assist community pharmacists in increasing the number of formal and documented medication management services completed for patients with diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension.

Methods: A cluster-randomized before-after design will compare ten pharmacies from within a single organization, with the unit of randomization being the pharmacy. Pharmacies will be randomized to facilitated intervention based on the PARiHS framework or usual practice. The Alberta Context Tool will be used to establish the context of practice in each pharmacy. Pharmacies randomized to the intervention will receive task-focused facilitation from an external facilitator, with the goal of developing alternative team processes to allow the greater provision of medication management services for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. The primary outcome will be a process evaluation of the needs of community pharmacies to provide more clinical services, the acceptability and uptake of modifications made, and the willingness of pharmacies to participate. Secondary outcomes will include the change in the number of formal and documented medication management services in the aforementioned chronic conditions provided 6 months before, versus after, the intervention between the two groups, and identification of feasible quantitative outcomes for evaluating the effect of the intervention on patient care outcomes.

Results: To date, the study has identified and enrolled the ten pharmacies required and initiated the intervention process.

Conclusion: This study will be the first to examine the role of facilitation in pharmacy practice, with the goal of scalable and sustainable practice change.

详细描述

Please see the following publication for a detailed description of the work:

Pilot and Feasibility Studies 01/2015; 1(2). DOI: 10.1186/2055-5784-1-2

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Health Services Research
盲法
None

入排标准

性别
All
接受健康志愿者
是

入选标准

  • •Pharmacies: Community pharmacy locations of a medium-sized pharmacy chain with an interest in and the ability to provide medication management services, but have not fully integrated these activities
  • •Patients: Any Alberta residents qualifying for pharmacy clinical services as defined by the Alberta Pharmacy Fee Framework

排除标准

  • 未提供

研究组 & 干预措施

Task-focused facilitation

Experimental

An external, task-focused facilitation, informed by an evaluation of contextual factors using the Alberta Context Tool (ACT), will be applied to train community pharmacies to develop alternative team processes that enable a greater number of medication management services to be provided to patients with diabetes, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia.

干预措施: Task-focused facilitation (Behavioral)

Control

No Intervention

These sites will continue practice as usual, with no contact from study staff.

结局指标

主要结局

Change in Service Counts From Baseline to End of Intervention Period

时间窗: 6 month intervention period vs. 6 month baseline prior to intervention

Difference in the number of billable services (influenza vaccinations, Comprehensive Annual Care Plans and follow-ups, and Standard Medication Management Assessments and follow-ups) between the intervention period and the 6-months prior to intervention (baseline)

次要结局

未报告次要终点

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor

研究点 (1)

Loading locations...

相似试验