Background: The inclusion of pharmacists into general practices in Australia has expanded in recent years. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the literature of qualitative and quantitative studies, and identify the knowledge gaps, related to pharmacists working in general practice in Australia. Methods: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of databases to January 2021. The search was focused on studies investigating general practice pharmacists in Australia. The quality of each study was appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool criteria. The narrative synthesis approach was utilised to describe data due to the heterogeneity among study designs and measures. Results: Twenty-five studies were included in this review. General practice pharmacists engaged in various non-dispensing patient care services, with medication management reviews being the primary activity reported. General practice pharmacists’ characteristics and an environment with a willingness of collaboration were the notable influencing factors for successfully including pharmacists in general practices. Factors that posed a challenge to the adoption of general practice pharmacists were lack of funding and other resources, poorly defined roles, and absence of mentoring/training. Conclusion: This review has summarised the characteristics, activities, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of including pharmacists in general practices in Australia. General practice pharmacists are well accepted by stakeholders, and they can engage in a range of patient-centred activities to benefit patients. There is a need for more robust research to explore the patient and economic outcomes related to clinical activities that a pharmacist can perform in general practice, as a foundation to developing an appropriate and sustainable funding model. The findings of this review will be beneficial for pharmacists, researchers, policymakers, and readers who wish to implement the role of general practice pharmacists in the future.

As team-based care continues to evolve, pharmacists have been included in general practice teams in many countries, to varying extents, to improve medication use and patient safety. However, evidence on interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of pharmacists in general practice is sparse. This study aimed to compare the extent of interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists in Australia with international sites (Canada and the UK), and identify the factors associated with interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness. General practice pharmacists from Australia, Canada, and the UK were identified through professional organisations and networks, and invited to participate in an online survey, adapted from existing validated tools. The survey explored interprofessional collaboration through four sub-domains (professional interactions, relationship initiation, trust and role clarity, and commitment to collaboration) and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists. Of the 101 respondents (26 from Australia, 44 from Canada and 31 from the UK), 79% were female and 78% were aged below 50 years. Interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness appeared to be high and similar between countries. Total scores for collaboration of pharmacists were 86.1 ± 7.4 in Australia, 88.5 ± 7.5 in the UK, and 89.1 ± 7.3 in Canada (mean ± SD, where higher scores represent more advanced collaboration), while the team effectiveness scores of the pharmacists were 88.6 ± 14.6 in Canada, 91.8 ± 14.6 in Australia and 97.5 ± 14.0 in the UK. Pharmacists who had worked in general practice for a longer time showed advanced interprofessional collaboration while those who worked exclusively in general practice had higher scores for team effectiveness. Overall, general practice pharmacists in the three countries were highly collaborative with general practitioners. Long-term employment and longer work hours could enhance interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness in general practice pharmacists by improving trust and working relationships over time.

Chronic Kidney Disease of uncertain etiology (CKDu) is an endemic, disease that mostly affects young agricultural workers in the rural dry zone of Sri Lanka. This study was designed to identify specific biochemical manifestations of CKDu cases. All (119) non-dialysis definite CKDu patients in Girandurukotte and Wilgamuwa were selected. Blood and urine samples were collected and measured biochemical parameters. All analyses were performed in IBM SPSS statistics version 23 (IBM Corp, USA). The median blood pressure was normal though nearly half of the patients (45.4%) who were in the advanced stages (Stage 3b, 4 and 5) of CKDu. Patients without a history of hypertension before the diagnosis of CKDu (100%) and minimal proteinuria (26%) are similar to the previous findings. Patients without a history of diabetes before the CKDu diagnosis had high percentages of diabetes (15.7%) and pre-diabetes (59.8%) and hence indicated the possibility of uremia induced impaired glucose intolerance in the rural areas of the country. There were 62.2% patients who had low vitamin D and only a minority had evidence of bone mineral diseases. Out of liver disease markers serum glutamic pyruvic transaminases (SGPT), serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminases (SGOT), gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), and Lactic acid degydrogenase (LDH) had an inverse correlation with the advancement of the disease indicating subclinical liver disease. Osmolality in serum and urine showed a discrepancy despite > 50% of CKDu patients had increased their serum osmolality. The current study supports most of the previously described manifestations of CKDu. Moreover, some specific patterns have been identified which need to be validated in a larger group.

Background: Pharmacists have been co-located in general practice teams to support the quality use of medicines and optimise patient health outcomes. Evidence of the impact of pharmacist-led activities in Australian general practices is sparse. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the potential outcomes of pharmacist-led activities in Australian general practices. Method: A prospective observational study was conducted in eight general practices in the Australian Capital Territory, where each general practice employed a pharmacist on a part-time basis for 18 months. A recommended, but flexible, list of activities was provided for pharmacists. Descriptive information on general practice pharmacist-led activities, collected with an online diary, was analysed. The potential clinical, economic, and organisational impact of pharmacist-led clinical activities was evaluated using the CLinical Economic Organisational (CLEO) tool, with a modified economic dimension. Results: Nine pharmacists reported 4290 activities over 3918.5 work hours in general practice. Medication management services were the primary clinical activity of pharmacists. In medication reviews, 75% of the pharmacists’ recommendations were fully accepted by general practitioners. Conducting clinical audits, updating patients’ medical records, and providing information to patients and staff were other major activities of pharmacists. Of 2419 clinical activities, around 50% had the potential for a moderate or major positive clinical impact on patients. Sixty-three per cent of activities had the potential to decrease healthcare costs. Almost all the pharmacist-led clinical activities had a positive organisational impact. Conclusion: Most pharmacist-led clinical activities in general practice had the potential for a positive impact on patients and reduction in healthcare costs, supporting the expansion of this model in Australia.

Pharmacists have been included in general practice teams to provide non-dispensing services in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) since 2016. Interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness are key considerations in providing high-quality patient care. These concepts have not been well studied following the inclusion of a pharmacist in general practice teams. A mixed methods study was conducted to explore collaboration between pharmacists and health professionals in eight general practices in the ACT, where pharmacists were included in their teams. A validated survey instrument was adapted and utilised to assess the changes in interprofessional collaboration over time following the addition of a pharmacist. Another validated survey was utilised to explore team effectiveness at the end of the study. Semi-structured interviews, with a thematic analysis, were conducted with a purposeful sample of general practice staff members to understand the factors influencing the development of interprofessional collaboration. In total, 56 and 41 participants completed the baseline and follow-up survey, including 26 who completed both surveys to assess the change in collaboration over time. Interprofessional collaboration scores were high initially and did not change over time. Team effectiveness was also high at the end of the study. Twenty-one individuals participated in interviews, which generated four main interrelated themes related to interprofessional collaboration: professional working relationships, trust, commitment to collaboration, and barriers to collaboration. Trust was integral to professional working relationships and commitment to collaboration. The barriers to collaboration included not having a role description for pharmacists, inadequate interest to initiate working relationships, lack of dedicated time for interaction, lack of utilisation, and poor awareness of pharmacist-led activities in general practice. Interprofessional collaboration was initially high and not influenced by the addition of a pharmacist, perhaps reflecting the inherent nature of the general practices willing to include a pharmacist within their team. Introducing a clear job description for pharmacists, and dedicating time to interact with pharmacists, could be beneficial in improving trust and professional working relationships and enhancing collaboration between the pharmacists and other general practice team members.