Background: Few studies have evaluated roles of general practice-based pharmacists (PBPs), particularly in optimizing medicines management for older people with both multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Objective: To explore the types and effectiveness of services provided by PBPs, either alone or in collaboration with other primary health care professionals, that sought to optimize medicines management for older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Methods: Eight electronic databases and three trial registries were searched for studies published in English until April 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies of services delivered by PBPs in primary care/general practice, for patients aged ≥65 years with both multimorbidity and polypharmacy that focused on a number of outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 1) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool were used for quality assessment. A narrative synthesis was conducted due to study heterogeneity. Results: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. All included studies employed PBP-led medication review accompanied by recommendations agreed and implemented by general practitioners. Other patient-level and practice-level interventions were described in one study. The limited available evidence suggested that PBPs, in collaboration with other practice team members, had mixed effects on outcomes focused on optimizing medicines management for older people. Most included studies were of poor quality and data to estimate the risk of bias were often missing. Conclusion: Future high-quality studies are needed to test the effects of PBP interventions on a well-defined range of medicines management-related outcomes.

Background: Practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) have been introduced into general practice across the UK to relieve some of the pressures within primary care. However, there is little existing UK literature that has explored healthcare professionals’ (HCPs’) views about PBP integration and how this role has evolved.Aim: To explore the views and experiences of GPs, PBPs, and community pharmacists (CPs) about PBPs’ integration into general practice and their impact on primary healthcare delivery.Design and setting: A qualitative interview study in primary care in Northern Ireland.Method: Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit triads (a GP, a PBP, and a CP) from across five administrative healthcare areas in Northern Ireland. Sampling of practices to recruit GPs and PBPs commenced in August 2020. These HCPs identified the CPs who had most contact with the general practices in which the recruited GPs and PBPs were working. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis.Results: Eleven triads were recruited from across the five administrative areas. Four main themes in relation to PBPs’ integration into general practices were revealed: evolution of the role; PBP attributes; collaboration and communication; and impact on care. Areas for development were identified such as patient awareness of the PBP role. Many saw PBPs as a ‘central hub–middleman’ between general practice and community pharmacies.Conclusion: Participants reported that PBPs had integrated well and perceived a positive impact on primary healthcare delivery. Further work is needed to increase patient awareness of the PBP role.

To enhance the impact of pharmacovigilance on drug safety, it must be integrated into the healthcare system. This study aimed to examine community pharmacists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding adverse drug reaction reporting and pharmacovigilance. A self-administered, cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted among eligible community pharmacists between July and September 2023. Participants completed online and paper-based questionnaires after providing prior consent. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 28). One-way ANOVA was used to assess the significance of the association between knowledge, attitude, practice scores, and demographic characteristics. A total of 239 pharmacists completed the questionnaire (response rate of 67.5 %). Of them, 65.3 % were females. Poor knowledge regarding pharmacovigilance was evident in 66.1 % of participants, while only 11 % demonstrated good knowledge. Attitudes were primarily neutral (72.8 %), and practices were categorized as fair for 41.0 % and poor for 31.0 % of pharmacists. Significant factors influencing adverse drug reaction reporting included years of experience (P = 0.012) and awareness of the pharmacovigilance center (P = 0.000). The serious nature of adverse drug reactions was identified as the key facilitator for reporting (40.5 %), while well-documented adverse drug reactions in the literature (21.2 %) and lack of time (19.5 %) were the primary barriers among pharmacists. This study emphasizes the potential enhancement of adverse drug reaction reporting among community pharmacists by addressing poor knowledge, neutral attitudes, and barriers like time constraints. Targeted educational interventions and structured reporting frameworks are essential to enhance pharmacovigilance and ensure medication safety.

Objectives: The present study was carried out to identify and report the pattern of antibiotics prescribing to determine the adherence to the international empirical and therapeutic guidelines of antibiotic use. Methods: A point prevalence survey took place at a selected date of January 26, 2020, in which data collection was performed to all the patients present in the hospital who used at least one systemic antibiotic agent as an inpatient from 00:00 am until midnight of that day. This was performed using European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC – audit tool). The participated hospital in this point prevalence study represents a major government hospital in the UAE. Descriptive statistics were used and results were expressed using standard statistical methods. Results: Out of the 125 hospitalized patients, a total of 41 (32.8%) patients were included in the survey and treated with different trends of antibiotics on the date point prevalence survey. The total number prescribed antibiotics was 54 with a higher percentage of treatment indication (70.4%), compared to prophylaxis indication (29.6%). The combinations of penicillin’s win in being the most commonly used agents by a percent of 31.5%, including the use of Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid by 22.2% and Piperacillin-tazobactam with 9.3%. The compliance with local/international guidelines accounts for 78.0% of the treated & prophylaxis patients. Conclusions: Considerable results have been obtained which can assure the quality improvement of the antibiotic use in the studied hospital.

Background: Non-communicable diseases represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Jordan and place increasing demands on primary healthcare services. Community pharmacists (CPs) play an important role in providing health promotion and disease prevention (HPDP) services. However, limited evidence exists regarding factors influencing their involvement in these activities. Objective: The study aimed to explore CPs’ perceptions and experiences regarding the provision of HPDP services in Jordan and to identify factors influencing service delivery, including facilitators and barriers. Methods: Between January and April 2025, face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with CPs in Amman, Jordan, recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed in NVivo® QSR 14 using inductive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six-step approach. Transcripts were independently coded by two researchers. The identified themes were subsequently deductively mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) framework. Data collection and analysis were conducted concurrently, and data saturation was achieved when no new themes emerged. Results: Fifteen CPs participated. Four themes were identified: (1) Diverse and evolving roles of CPs in HPDP; (2) Barriers to providing HPDP services, including workload, limited patient engagement, lack of appreciation from pharmacy owners, and the absence of financial incentives; (3) Professional requirements and capacity building, including continuing professional development, undergraduate training, and physician collaboration; and (4) Impact of providing HPDP services on patients, pharmacists, and the healthcare system. Deductive mapping indicated that pharmacists’ engagement in HPDP services was influenced by capability-, opportunity-, and motivation-related factors. Conclusions: CPs in Jordan play an active role in HPDP services; however, their contribution is hindered by structural, educational, and motivational barriers. Addressing these barriers through targeted training, infrastructure development, enhanced pharmacist-physician collaboration, and public awareness initiatives is essential to strengthen pharmacist-led HPDP services and support their integration into broader public health strategies in Jordan.