Next Article in Journal
Investigating the Feasibility of a Restaurant Delivery Service to Improve Food Security among College Students Experiencing Marginal Food Security, a Head-to-Head Trial with Grocery Store Gift Cards
Previous Article in Journal
Organizing and Analyzing Data from the SHARE Study with an Application to Age and Sex Differences in Depressive Symptoms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 18
10.3390/ijerph18189686
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pharmacists’ Perspectives on Interprofessional Collaboration with Physicians in Poland: A Quantitative Study

by
Łucja Zielińska-Tomczak
1,*,
Magdalena Cerbin-Koczorowska
1,
Piotr Przymuszała
1,
Natalia Gałązka
2 and
Ryszard Marciniak
1
1
Department of Medical Education, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 7 Rokietnicka St., 60-806 Poznan, Poland
2
Students’ Scientific Club of Medical Education, Department of Medical Education, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 60-806 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(18), 9686; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189686
Submission received: 25 August 2021 / Revised: 10 September 2021 / Accepted: 13 September 2021 / Published: 14 September 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Over the years, many studies have emphasized the pharmacist’s importance as part of the patient care team. Still, the interprofessional collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in their everyday work seems rare. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the types of contact between them, possible mutual collaboration, and barriers to implementation. This study was conducted from April to August 2020. The study group included licensed pharmacists working in community pharmacies in Poland (n = 207). The results show that, according to the respondents, physician–pharmacist contact mainly concerns formal aspects, such as correcting prescription errors. They occasionally communicate for other matters, such as consultation regarding drug availability and drug dosage. However, when asked to divide responsibilities between them and physicians, pharmacists indicate areas that should involve interprofessional collaboration, e.g., monitoring adverse drug reactions, analysis of multi-drug therapy, and checking the regularity of taking medications. They indicated the lack of specific collaboration rules, limited willingness to establish relationships and low mutual respect and trust among existing barriers. It is worth considering the possibility of overcoming these barriers provided by interprofessional education in order to develop communication skills and build relationships based on respect.

1. Introduction

Interprofessional collaboration in health care has been in place for years, and interprofessional teams are common in many parts of the world [1,2,3,4]. However, in some health care systems, the accomplishment of real interprofessional collaboration, in which all health care team members are engaged as equals and contribute their different knowledge and experience to achieve common clinical goals might seem an elusive idea. The physician’s dominant role as a clinical leader seems very firmly entrenched in the hierarchical health care system. On the other hand, some health care professionals are not even viewed as potential team members [5]. However, interprofessional care may become a factor in reducing the existing disproportion between the public demand for medical services and the health care system’s limited human resources [6]. Increasing problems include growing numbers of patient health concerns with a simultaneous increase in their complexity [7], as well as an overall longer average life expectancy, resulting in a significantly higher risk of chronic diseases [8].
Interprofessional care enables comprehensive care. Interprofessional care can be described as different health care professionals working together toward a common purpose—improving patient health [9]. Studies dedicated to the collaboration between physicians and pharmacists show that it can contribute to faster recovery and improvements in results (e.g., glucose control and blood pressure) [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Pharmacist involvement can also improve the quality of patient care by facilitating the identification of drug interactions and preventing the use of unsafe or ineffective treatment regimens [18,19]. Moreover, although the traditional model with a doctor diagnosing diseases and prescribing drugs that a pharmacist prepares and distributes seems insufficient in the modern health care system, the representatives of both professions still do not cooperate effectively in some parts of the world [20,21]. Bradley et al. [22] proposed a three-level model to assess the collaboration between physicians and pharmacists: level one—isolation, level two—communication, and level three—cooperation. In Poland, for example, the relationship between pharmacists and physicians is described to be on the level of isolation. This is evidenced by geographical separation and the dominant role played by the doctor. Pharmacists in Poland do not provide pharmaceutical care, and their role is often limited to formal activities [23].
Despite the growing awareness of benefits arising from pharmacist involvement [10,11,12,13,14], the establishment of interprofessional relationships is still being challenged by conflicts and communication problems [24]. Therefore, it seems necessary to examine the current state of physician–pharmacist collaboration and the types of contact between them to identify possible solutions for the development of interprofessional care. Consequently, this study aimed to assess pharmacists’ opinions, experiences, and expectations toward interprofessional collaboration.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was conducted from April to August 2020. The study group included licensed pharmacists working in community pharmacies in Poland. Participants were recruited from a diversified sample of pharmacies in terms of their geographical distribution (different parts of Poland) and urbanization levels (towns and villages).
In the interest of high content validity, the questionnaire used in this study was developed based on a previously conducted qualitative study [25]. Following the results in the study, appropriate thematic blocks were distinguished, which were later used to form questions and answer options. The obtained questionnaire consisted of 10 questions regarding the collaboration between physicians and pharmacists (for instance, pharmacists’ opinions, experiences, and expectations toward interprofessional collaboration) and 6 questions regarding the characteristics of the respondent (profession, work experience, places of work, foreign internship, and specialization). The questionnaire was preceded by instructions for respondents about the aim of this study and how to fill out the questionnaire.
Before sending it to participants, the questionnaire was pretested on a sample of three pharmacists in terms of comprehensibility and absence of suggestive questions. The suggestions made by the pharmacists during the pretesting procedure resulted in minor wording changes in some questions to increase their understandability. The responses of the pharmacists participating in the pretest were not included in further analysis.
The online version of the questionnaire was created using the researchonline.pl portal [26] and sent to a total of 3600 community pharmacies by e-mail. The mailing database was created based on data obtained from the Polish register of pharmacies [27].
The data obtained were analyzed with the Statistica PL 13.3 software (StatSoft) using the chi-squared test (χ2), Fisher’s exact test, the Mann–Whitney U test, and the Kruskal–Wallis test with post hoc Dunn’s test. Statistical significance was assumed at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Study Group

The questionnaire was opened 680 times and completed by 207 pharmacists working in community pharmacies. Participants worked in the profession for an average of 14.0 ± 10.3 years, and nearly 60% had less than 15 years of work experience. The study group was comprised of pharmacists employed in large, medium, and small towns and to a smaller extent in rural areas, which is consistent with the distribution of pharmacies in Poland [27]. The distinction between large, medium, and small towns was made according to the definitions adapted by the Polish Central Statistical Office (small towns—below 20,000 inhabitants; medium towns—20,000–100,000 inhabitants; large towns—100,000 and more inhabitants) [28]. Among the studied group, 30% of the respondents (n = 62) had a specialization. In Poland, it is possible for pharmacists to specialize in particular areas (e.g., community pharmacy, hospital pharmacy, and clinical pharmacy). However, having a specialization is not required to work in the profession [29]. The characteristics of the studied population are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Pharmacists’ Opinions on Interprofessional Collaboration

The vast majority of pharmacists considered collaboration with physicians a necessity (n4+5 = 204; 99.0%), and only slightly less assessed it as feasible (n4+5 = 173; 83.7%). Still, according to 48.3% of the respondents (n1+2 = 100), the current level of cooperation with doctors is bad or very bad. Only three respondents described the collaboration as excellent. The current state of partnership with physicians was better assessed by pharmacists with specialization (p = 0.031) (Table 2). Respondents mostly positively assessed their attitude toward cooperation. However, there was a significant difference in the intensity of that opinion, dependent on an individual’s participation in internships abroad (p = 0.011). Unfortunately, given the small number of respondents who gained professional experience abroad, caution is advised in the interpretation of this observation.
The Kruskal–Wallis test showed that perception of possible collaboration differs depending on the workplace’s degree of urbanization. Dunn’s post hoc test verified that groups with statistical differences are pharmacists in rural areas and cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants.

3.3. Pharmacists’ Experiences with Interprofessional Collaboration

As presented in Table 3, in the respondents’ experience, most common physician–pharmacist occurs in the correction of medical prescription errors. Other reasons for contact constitute consultations regarding drug availability at the pharmacy and correct drug dosage, but they were indicated noticeably less frequently. Other occasions for contact, e.g., consultations on choosing a drug substance, side effects, drug interactions, and medical devices, are very rare. Pharmacists with foreign experience tend to contact doctors more often on matters related to compounding medication than pharmacists who have not gained professional experience abroad (p = 0.018). Again, we recommend caution during interpretation due to the small sample of respondents with a foreign internship.
Among the barriers, more than half of the surveyed pharmacists indicated the lack of specific collaboration rules, limited willingness to establish relationships, and low mutual respect and trust. Reasons cited for the difficult contact between physicians and pharmacists also included a lack of activities integrating the medical community during studies, a lack of time, and insufficient legal regulations (Figure 1). Some pharmacists gave additional reasons impeding the establishment of collaboration, which were not anticipated in the questionnaire, such as inadequate knowledge about mutual competencies or fear of losing competencies.
R111: Belief that cooperation could interfere with the competencies of one of the parties.
R7: Lack of knowledge (awareness) of doctors about the knowledge of pharmacists.
R26: arrogance and underestimating the second profession and the competence of health care workers.
In the opinion of some pharmacists, certain physicians seem to perceive themselves as superior, which makes cooperation difficult. Moreover, they believe that some doctors may not even see pharmacists as partners, marginalizing their role to sellers. Additionally, respondents also report low self-esteem.
R51: Sense of superiority of physician’s profession over the rest of healthcare professions.
R140: Most physicians treat pharmacists as salespeople.
R142: Physicians do not treat pharmacists as partners but rather as their subordinates because they think that only they [physicians] can cure, and pharmacists do not treat anyone.

3.4. Pharmacists Expectations toward Interprofessional Collaboration

Pharmacists indicate that themselves as responsible for educating patients on using simple diagnostic devices (n = 116; 80.2%). On the other hand, they indicate that physicians are responsible for determining the type of tests necessary in the course of pharmacotherapy (n = 151; 73.0%) and choosing the most effective drug substance for a given disease (n = 139; 67.2%). However, in most tasks, they answered that interprofessional collaboration is necessary. Pharmacists with specialization perceive the task of choosing a preparation containing the treatment substance differently (p = 0.008). In their opinion, the physician should be responsible for selecting the preparation (n = 33; 53.2%), while pharmacists without specialization see the possibility of cooperation in this respect (n = 59; 40.9%). Differences are also observed in the approach of pharmacists with professional experience gained abroad in analysis of multi-drug therapy. They believe that this is in the pharmacist’s competence (n = 10; 62.5%). The remaining pharmacists want cooperation with doctors in this regard (n = 122; 63.9%). However, due to the small sample of respondents with a foreign internship, this observation should be interpreted with caution. Detailed information on the areas is presented in Figure 2.
Pharmacists were also able to indicate how collaboration with physicians could take place. Most pharmacists have chosen to contact physicians by phone or e-mail, followed by daily contact through joint work in the ward and consultations in pharmacies (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

The studies carried out so far show that the collaboration between representatives of various medical professions, both in hospital and ambulatory care, results in increased patient satisfaction and acceptance of the therapy [14]. They also provide evidence for the importance of interprofessional activities in improving the effectiveness and safety of the treatment, including the management of chronic diseases [30]. Additionally, various studies in Poland emphasize that both pharmacists and students of pharmacy expect to expand their professional role and see themselves as competent specialists in the field of pharmacotherapy [31,32,33].
However, as our results show, this evidence still does not translate into practice in Poland. This study shows that contact between Polish physicians and pharmacists is still occasional and limited mainly to correcting prescription errors. As indicated by Alkhateeb et al. [34], a relationship based solely on formal issues is not conducive to building an interprofessional relationship and reduces doctors’ interest in establishing future cooperation. Lack of contact in pharmacotherapy matters may be caused by the lack of knowledge about mutual competencies and the fear of losing own competencies resulting from misunderstandings of mutual roles [33,35,36]. Additionally, the fear of losing ‘professional territory’ makes it difficult to build partnership relations [37].
Although pharmacists declare their positive attitude to cooperation with doctors, they list the lack of willingness to cooperate as one of the barriers to establishing interprofessional relationships. Żak [21] showed in his study that pharmacists emphasize that the lack of effective cooperation with doctors is a significant barrier to pharmaceutical care. He also points out that the negative attitude of doctors to cooperation may limit this service. Similarly, a study by van Mill et al. [38] showed that pharmacists’ and other health care professionals’ attitudes constitute one of the two most important barriers to the introduction of pharmaceutical care in European countries. Meanwhile, Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior indicates that attitude is one of the three determinants influencing intention and, as a result, performing given behavior [39].
Among the identified factors influencing the development of the correct collaboration are mutual respect, trust, communication, and knowledge of each other [40]. Similarly, in this study, pharmacists identified the lack of these characteristics among barriers to implementing the collaboration. Noteworthy, 71% of respondents mentioned the lack of mutual trust and respect, and almost 58% indicated the lack of knowledge about mutual competencies. On the other hand, fewer respondents indicated a lack of communication skills (36.7%) or a lack of available communication channels (27%). Still, it should be mentioned that Żak [21] pointed to the absence of an integrated IT system on the physician–pharmacist line as a cause of the lack of more effective cooperation opportunities.
Simultaneously, there are other barriers to cooperation, such as the lack of time to develop collaboration. Both Goldstone et al. [41] and Żak [21] indicate that this is caused by staff shortages and the number of duties reported by both doctors and pharmacists.
What is more, there is a lack of described standards or guidelines of cooperation between both professions in Poland, which may, in turn, translate into a negative approach to collaboration between physicians and pharmacists [21]. However, recently in Poland, actions were undertaken to change this situation, such as the demand of the Supreme Medical Chamber to clarify the aspects of cooperation [42] or the adoption of the Act on the Pharmacist’s Profession [43], which legally regulates the competences of pharmacists and provides grounds for initiating their cooperation with doctors.
In this study, pharmacists indicate medical areas in which collaboration with a physician would be possible, including monitoring side effects of drugs, analysis of multi-drug therapy, patient education, or checking the regularity and correct way of taking medications. Many of these were also previously described in studies from both Poland and other countries. For instance, previously conducted research shows that Polish pharmacists are prepared and open to getting involved in patient health education [44,45]. A similar increase in the involvement of pharmacists in patient education is also observed in other countries [46]. Further, it is worth emphasizing that joint International Pharmaceutical Federation and World Health Organization guidelines on good pharmacy practice [47] also place the pharmacist as the medical partner responsible for identifying alarming symptoms and educating patients. Furthermore, other studies also show that pharmacists are ready to expand the scope of their practice and perform roles in addition to engaging in the design and supervision of pharmacotherapy, such as identifying and preventing prescription errors or suggesting non-prescription medications to patients [48,49,50,51]. Noteworthy, patient education is perceived as an area where cooperation between representatives of both professions is particularly desirable [52].
Nevertheless, it seems that pharmacists still rarely contact doctors, thus maintaining the traditional model of physician–pharmacist contact [20]. The literature distinguishes three stages of interprofessional relationships: isolation, communication, and cooperation [40]. Unfortunately, reports from different countries still present the model as corresponding to the first stage, with separation of work and isolation of pharmacists and physicians [34,48,49,53,54,55]. Meanwhile, pharmacists pay attention to the possibility of contacting a physician, emphasizing the use of information and communication technology. The results of previous studies also show that it should be developed and promoted in collaboration between the doctor and pharmacist [56,57,58].
Last but not least, although it did not appear among the results of this study, interprofessional education (IPE) can provide opportunities to develop cooperation between doctors and pharmacists. IPE is an educational model involving training in teams in which two or more professionals learn with each other, from each other and about each other [59]. Participation in IPE enables learners to deepen their knowledge, develop mutual respect, communicate effectively and learn about each other’s competencies [60]. IPE teaches understanding of individual specialists’ roles and develops a willingness to cooperate, one of the basic building blocks of a proper interprofessional relationship. Activities of this nature affect the behavior change in the interprofessional group. They teach how to solve problems together, improve the use of communication techniques such as active listening [61,62], and broaden knowledge and learn about colleagues’ competencies [40]. As previous research suggests, including IPE in postgraduate training may prove beneficial [63]. While many interventions have been designed to enhance interprofessional collaboration, a systematic review by Bollen et al. [64] concluded that most of the research has focused on the educational effectiveness of these initiatives, and too little attention has been paid to behavioral changes. In light of this research, it is planned to check how IPE classes affect attitudes and establish cooperation.

Limitations

We acknowledge that this study has limitations. First of all, the study group consisted of pharmacists working in community pharmacies, and it may be worth extending this study to learn about perspectives of pharmacists working in other places, e.g., hospital pharmacies. Another limitation is the low response rate. Although we sent invitations to participate to 3600 pharmacies, only 207 pharmacists completed the survey. Further, we cannot exclude the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the collected results. During this study, pharmacists were burdened with numerous professional duties, potentially affecting their involvement in the research and opinions on the topic under study. Finally, we cannot rule out bias in the first and second researchers, who, as licensed pharmacists, have their own views on the subject. Therefore, researchers with different professional backgrounds (PP—physician, NG—pharmacy student, and RM—physician) were included in the study group of researchers.

5. Conclusions

Pharmacists and doctors in Poland contact each other, mainly on formal matters, such as correcting prescription errors. This contact may contribute to the deepening of one of the barriers—the lack of willingness to collaborate. Other barriers, such as the lack of established standards of cooperation, respect, self-confidence, and knowledge of mutual competencies, also hinder the development of interprofessional relations. The possibility of overcoming these barriers with IPE is worth considering, as it develops communication skills and teaches how to build proper relationships based on respect and trust.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Ł.Z.-T. and M.C.-K.; methodology, Ł.Z.-T.; validation, Ł.Z.-T., M.C.-K. and P.P.; investigation Ł.Z.-T.; data curation, Ł.Z.-T.; writing—original draft preparation, Ł.Z.-T. and P.P.; writing—review and editing, M.C.-K., N.G. and R.M.; visualization, Ł.Z.-T.; supervision, R.M.; project administration, Ł.Z.-T.; funding acquisition, Ł.Z.-T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by Poznan University of Medical Sciences Grant No: 502-14-41021080-41293.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Raiche, T.; Pammett, R.; Dattani, S.; Dolovich, L.; Hamilton, K.; Kennie-Kaulbach, N.; Mccarthy, L.; Jorgenson, D. Community pharmacists’ evolving role in Canadian primary health care: A vision of harmonization in a patchwork system. Pharm. Pract. 2020, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gordon, C.; Unni, E.; Montuoro, J.; Ogborn, D.B. Community pharmacist-led clinical services: Physician’s understanding, perceptions and readiness to collaborate in a Midwestern state in the United States. Int. J. Pharm. Pract. 2018, 26, 407–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Guidelines for Pharmacists Providing Home Medicines Review (HMR) Services PSA. Available online: https://www.ppaonline.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PSA-Guidelines-for-Providing-Home-Medicines-Review-HMR-Services.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2020).
  4. Florentinus, S.R.; van Hulten, R.; Kramer, M.; van Dijk, L.; Heerdink, E.R.; Leufkens, H.G.M.; Groenewegen, P.P. Which pharmacists contribute to high-level pharmacotherapy audit meetings with general practitioners? Ann. Pharmacother. 2006, 40, 1640–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Reeves, S.; Macmillan, K.; Van Soeren, M. Leadership of interprofessional health and social care teams: A socio-historical analysis. J. Nurs. Manag. 2010, 18, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kludacz, M. The Problem of Availability of Human Resources in the Polish Health Care System Compared to Other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Countries. Ekon. Zarz. 2015, 7, 9–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sy, M.P. Filipino therapists’ experiences and attitudes of interprofessional education and collaboration: A cross-sectional survey. J. Interprof. Care 2017, 31, 761–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Topór-Mądry, R. Chronic diseases. Burden, quality of life and economic consequences. Zdr. Publiczne Zarz. 2011, 1, 25–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leathard, A. Going Interprofessional: Working Together for Health and Welfare; Routledge: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  10. Carter, B.L.; Bergus, G.R.; Dawson, J.D.; Farris, K.B.; Doucette, W.R.; Chrischilles, E.A.; Hartz, A.J. A cluster randomized trial to evaluate physician/pharmacist collaboration to improve blood pressure control. J. Clin. Hypertens. 2008, 10, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Carter, B.L.; Ardery, G.; Dawson, J.D.; James, P.A.; Bergus, G.R.; Doucette, W.R.; Chrischilles, E.A.; Franciscus, C.L.; Xu, Y. Physician and pharmacist collaboration to improve blood pressure control. Arch. Intern. Med. 2009, 169, 1996–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Krass, I.; Armour, C.L.; Mitchell, B.; Brillant, M.; Dienaar, R.; Hughes, J.; Lau, P.; Peterson, G.; Stewart, K.; Taylor, S.; et al. The pharmacy diabetes care program: Assessment of a community pharmacy diabetes service model in Australia. Diabet. Med. 2007, 24, 677–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Armour, C.; Bosnic-Anticevich, S.; Brillant, M.; Burton, D.; Emmerton, L.; Krass, I.; Saini, B.; Smith, L.; Stewart, K. Pharmacy Asthma Care Program (PACP) improves outcomes for patients in the community. Thorax 2007, 62, 496–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. WHO. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  15. Al AdAwi, R.M.; Stewart, D.; Ryan, C.; Tonna, A.P. A systematic review of pharmacist input to metabolic syndrome screening, management and prevention. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2020, 42, 995–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Abdulrhim, S.; Sankaralingam, S.; Ibrahim, M.I.M.; Awaisu, A. The impact of pharmacist care on diabetes outcomes in primary care settings: An umbrella review of published systematic reviews. Prim. Care Diabetes 2020, 14, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hasan Ibrahim, A.S.; Barry, H.E.; Hughes, C.M. A systematic review of general practice-based pharmacists’ services to optimize medicines management in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Fam. Pract. 2021, 38, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Malone, D.C.; Abarca, J.; Skrepnek, G.H.; Murphy, J.E.; Armstrong, E.P.; Grizzle, A.J.; Rehfeld, R.A.; Woosley, R.L. Pharmacist workload and pharmacy characteristics associated with the dispensing of potentially clinically important drug-drug interactions. Med. Care 2007, 45, 456–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Becker, M.L.; Kallewaard, M.; Caspers, P.W.J.; Schalekamp, T.; Stricker, B.H.C. Potential determinants of drug-drug interaction associated dispensing in community pharmacies. Drug Saf. 2005, 28, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alipour, F.; Peiravian, F.; Mehralian, G. Perceptions, experiences and expectations of physicians regarding the role of pharmacists in low-income and middle-income countries: The case of Tehran hospital settings. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e019237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Żak, K. Pharmaceutical care or professional advice? Barriers to the implementation of pharmaceutical care in Poland. Ekon. Wroc. Econ. Rev. 2018, 4, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Bradley, F.; Ashcroft, D.M.; Noyce, P.R. Integration and differentiation: A conceptual model of general practitioner and community pharmacist collaboration. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2012, 8, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Piecuch, A.; Makarewicz-Wujec, M.; Kozłowska-Wojciechowska, M. Pharmacist-physician relationships. Farm. Pol. 2014, 70, 353–362. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lemay, J.; Waheedi, M.; Al-Taweel, D.; Bayoud, T.; Moreau, P. Clinical pharmacy in Kuwait: Services provided, perceptions and barriers. Saudi Pharm. J. 2018, 26, 481–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zielińska-Tomczak, Ł.; Cerbin-Koczorowska, M.; Przymuszała, P.; Marciniak, R. How to effectively promote interprofessional collaboration?—A qualitative study on physicians’ and pharmacists’ perspectives driven by the theory of planned behavior. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Research Online. Available online: http://researchonline.pl/ (accessed on 29 June 2021).
  27. Polish Medical Registers. Available online: https://rejestrymedyczne.csioz.gov.pl/ra/search/public (accessed on 3 February 2020).
  28. Polish Central Statistical Office Cities in Numbers. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/oz_miasta_w_liczbach_2009_notatka_infor.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2020).
  29. Website of the Polish Ministry of Health. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/zdrowie/ksztalcenie-podyplomowe-farmaceutow (accessed on 9 September 2021).
  30. Chiolero, A.; Tremblay, S.; Delmas, P.; Scherrer, F.; Wuerzner, G.; Burnier, M.; Santschi, V. Interprofessional education in hypertension: Foundation for a team-based care culture. Eur. J. Public Health 2017, 27, ckx189.209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Merks, P.; Bryła, A.; Harężlak, T.; Chmielewska-Ignatowicz, T. Job satisfaction survey among pharmacist employed in community pharmacies in Poland. Business 2019, 75, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chief Pharmaceutical Chamber and Aflofarm Foundation Pharmacist in Poland. Nationwide Image Research. Available online: https://www.popierwszefarmaceuta.pl/assets/Uploads/Raport-Farmaceuta-w-Polsce.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2020).
  33. Cerbin-Koczorowska, M.; Zielinska-Tomczak, L.; Waszyk-Nowaczyk, M.; Michalak, M.; Skowron, A. As the twig is bent, so is the tree inclined: A survey of student attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration supported with the curricula analysis. J. Interprof. Care 2019, 33, 636–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alkhateeb, F.M.; Clauson, K.A.; McCafferty, R.; Latif, D.A. Physician attitudes toward pharmacist provision of medication therapy management services. Pharm. World Sci. 2009, 31, 487–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ahgren, B.; Axelsson, R. A decade of integration and collaboration: The development of integrated health care in Sweden 2000–2010. Int. J. Integr. Care 2011, 11, e007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Braithwaite, J. Bridging gaps to promote networked care between teams and groups in health delivery systems: A systematic review of non-health literature. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e006567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. San Martín-Rodríguez, L.; Beaulieu, M.-D.; D’Amour, D.; Ferrada-Videla, M. The determinants of successful collaboration: A review of theoretical and empirical studies. J. Interprof. Care 2005, 19, 132–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Van Mil, J.W.F.; De Boer, W.O.; Tromp, T.F.J. European barriers to the implementation of pharmaceutical care. Int. J. Pharm. Pract. 2001, 9, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bardet, J.D.; Vo, T.H.; Bedouch, P.; Allenet, B. Physicians and community pharmacists collaboration in primary care: A review of specific models. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2015, 11, 602–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Goldstone, L.W.; Saldaña, S.N.; Werremeyer, A. Pharmacist provision of patient medication education groups. Am. J. Health Pharm. 2015, 72, 487–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chruściel, T.; Chciałowski, A.; Rolczyk, U. Pharmaceutical Care—Yes, but…Commentary to the Draft Act on the Profession of Pharmacist. Available online: https://papier.gazetalekarska.pl/pdf/Gazeta_Lekarska_10_2007.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2020).
  43. Act on the Profession of the Pharmacist. Available online: http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/proc9.nsf/ustawy/238_u.htm (accessed on 21 December 2020).
  44. Cerbin-Koczorowska, M.; Waszyk-Nowaczyk, M.; Przymuszała, P. Pharmacists’ preparedness to patients education at the time of pandemic—A cross-sectional study with an example of sars-cov-2 outbreak in Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Cerbin-Koczorowska, M.; Przymuszala, P.; Zielinska-Tomczak, L.; Wawrzyniak, E.; Marciniak, R. Is there a time and place for health education in chain pharmacies? Perspectives of Polish community pharmacists. Health Soc. Care Community 2021, 29, e56–e66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Costa, F.A.; Scullin, C.; Al-Taani, G.; Hawwa, A.F.; Anderson, C.; Bezverhni, Z.; Binakaj, Z.; Cordina, M.; Foulon, V.; Garcia de Bikuña, B.; et al. Provision of pharmaceutical care by community pharmacists across Europe: Is it developing and spreading? J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2017, 23, 1336–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. World Health Organization. World Health Organization Joint FIP/WHO guidelines on good pharmacy practice: Standards for quality of pharmacy services. WHO Tech. Rep. Ser. 2011, 961, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  48. Awad, A.; Matowe, L.; Capps, P. Medical doctors’ perceptions and expectations of the role of hospital pharmacists in Sudan. Pharm. World Sci. PWS 2007, 29, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Io, U.M.; Hu, H.; Ung, C.O.L. Physicians’ and pharmacists’ experience and expectations of the roles of pharmacists: Insights into hospital setting in Macau. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2013, 12, 1077–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Bryant, L.J.M.; Coster, G.; Gamble, G.D.; McCormick, R.N. General practitioners’ and pharmacists’ perceptions of the role of community pharmacists in delivering clinical services. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2009, 5, 347–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. El Hajj, M.S.; AL-Saeed, H.S.; Khaja, M. Qatar pharmacists’ understanding, attitudes, practice and perceived barriers related to providing pharmaceutical care. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2016, 38, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cerbin-Koczorowska, M.; Michalak, M.; Skotnicki, M.; Waszyk-Nowaczyk, M. Partnership-is it even possible? Different attitudes of medical and pharmacy students toward interprofessional cooperation. Farmacia 2014, 62, 6. [Google Scholar]
  53. Iskierski, J.; Zimmermann, A. Social role of the pharmaceutical profession in the eyes of pharmacists and the patients. Farm. Pol. 2006, 62, 210–217. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ranelli, P.L.; Biss, J. Physicians’ perceptions of communication with and responsibilities of pharmacists. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2000, 40, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Matowe, L.; Abahussain, E.A.; Al-Saffar, N.; Bihzad, S.M.; Al-Foraih, A.; Al-Kandery, A.A. Physicians’ perceptions and expectations of pharmacists’ professional duties in government hospitals in Kuwait. Med. Princ. Pract. 2006, 15, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kelly, D.V.; Bishop, L.; Young, S.; Hawboldt, J.; Phillips, L.; Keough, T.M. Pharmacist and physician views on collaborative practice: Findings from the community pharmaceutical care project. Can. Pharm. J. 2013, 146, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hashemian, F.; Emadi, F.; Roohi, E. Collaboration between pharmacists and general practitioners in the health care system in the Islamic Republic of Iran. EMRO 2016, 22, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Albassam, A.; Almohammed, H.; Alhujaili, M.; Koshy, S.; Awad, A. Perspectives of primary care physicians and pharmacists on interprofessional collaboration in Kuwait: A quantitative study. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0236114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hammick, M.; Freeth, D.; Koppel, I.; Reeves, S.; Barr, H. A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9. Med. Teach. 2007, 29, 735–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liaskos, J.; Frigas, A.; Antypas, K.; Zikos, D.; Diomidous, M.; Mantas, J. Promoting interprofessional education in health sector within the European Interprofessional Education Network. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2009, 78, S43–S47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Baggs, J.G.; Schmitt, M.H. Nurses’ and resident physicians’ perceptions of the process of collaboration in an MICU. Res. Nurs. Health 1997, 20, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Buring, S.M.; Bhushan, A.; Broeseker, A.; Conway, S.; Duncan-Hewitt, W.; Hansen, L.; Westberg, S. Interprofessional education: Definitions, student competencies, and guidelines for implementation. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2009, 73, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Cerbin-Koczorowska, M.; Przymuszała, P.; Michalak, M.; Piotrowska-Brudnicka, S.; Kant, P.; Skowron, A. Comparison of medical and pharmacy students’ readiness for interprofessional learning-a cross-sectional study. Farmacia 2020, 68, 1166–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bollen, A.; Harrison, R.; Aslani, P.; van Haastregt, J.C.M. Factors influencing interprofessional collaboration between community pharmacists and general practitioners—A systematic review. Health Soc. Care Community 2019, 27, e189–e212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ijerph 18 09686 g001 550
Figure 1. Barriers of collaboration.
Figure 1. Barriers of collaboration.
Ijerph 18 09686 g001
Ijerph 18 09686 g002 550
Figure 2. The proposed division of tasks between the physician and the pharmacist.
Figure 2. The proposed division of tasks between the physician and the pharmacist.
Ijerph 18 09686 g002
Ijerph 18 09686 g003 550
Figure 3. Proposed forms of collaboration. Answer the question: In what form could the collaboration between physicians and pharmacists take place?
Figure 3. Proposed forms of collaboration. Answer the question: In what form could the collaboration between physicians and pharmacists take place?
Ijerph 18 09686 g003
Table
Table 1. The characteristics of respondents.
Table 1. The characteristics of respondents.
nPercent, %
Number of respondents207100.0
Workplace 1
village199.2
small town5526.6
medium town6531.4
large town6832.9
Seniority (years)
≤56230.0
6–156029.0
16–255225.1
≥263315.9
Foreign internship
Yes167.7
No19192.3
Specialization
Yes6230.0
No14570.0
Workplace 1: defined based on definitions from the Polish Central Statistical Office (small towns—population below 20,000 inhabitants; medium towns—population 20,000–100,000 inhabitants; large towns—population above 100,000 inhabitants) [28].
Table
Table 2. Pharmacists’ opinions on interprofessional collaboration.
Table 2. Pharmacists’ opinions on interprofessional collaboration.
VariablesResults
Σnn1+2n3n4+5DominantMedianLower QuartileUpper Quartilep-Value
How is the collaboration between pharmacists and physicians currently shaped?
(response options on a scale from 1—cooperation is very bad to 5—cooperation is very good)
182100
(55.0%)		43
(23.6%)		39
(21.4%)		2223
SpecializationNo12777
(60.6%)		27
(21.3%)		23
(18.1%)		2223p = 0.031
Yes5523
(41.8%)		16
(29.1%)		16
(29.1%)		2–3324
Workplace 1village1710
(58.8%)		3
(17.7%)		4
(23.5%)		2223ns
small town4921
(42.9%)		15
(30.6%)		13
(26.5%)		2324
medium town5329
(54.7%)		14
(26.4%)		10
(18.9%)		2223
large town6340
(63.5%)		11
(17.5%)		12
(19.1%)		2223
Foreign internshipNo16989
(52.7%)		42
(24.9%)		38
(22.5%)		2223ns
Yes1311
(84.6%)		1
(7.7%)		1
(7.7%)		2222
Is collaboration between a pharmacist and a physician possible?
(response options on a scale from 1—definitely not to 5—definitely yes)
20719
(9.2%)		15
(7.2%)		173
(83.6%)		4545
SpecializationNo14513
(9.0%)		11
(7.6%)		121
(83.4%)		4–5445ns
Yes626
(9.7%)		4
(6.4%)		52
(83.9%)		5545
Workplace 1village194
(21.1%)		3
(15.8%)		12
(63.1%)		4435p = 0.026
small town555
(9.1%)		2
(3.6%)		48
(87.3%)		4445
medium town655
(7.7%)		6
(9.2%)		54
(83.1%)		5445
large town685
(7.4%)		4
(5.8%)		59
(86.8%)		5545
Foreign internshipNo19118
(9.4%)		14
(7.3%)		159
(83.3%)		5445ns
Yes161
(6.3%)		1
(6.3%)		14
(87.5%)		5445
Assess your attitude to collaboration between a physician and a pharmacist
(response options on a scale from 1—very reluctant to 5—very willing)
19824
(12.1%)		18
(9.1%)		156
(78.8%)		5545
SpecializationNo14019
(13.6%)		15
(10.7%)		106
(75.7%)		5545ns
Yes395
(12.8%)		4
(10.7%)		30
(76.9%)		5545
Workplace 1Village162
(12.5%)		7
(43.8%)		7
(43.8%)		4–5445ns
small town459
(20.0%)		8
(17.8%)		28
(62.2%)		5435
medium town6110
(16.4%)		6
(9.8%)		45
(73.8%)		5545
large town673
(4.5%)		5
(7.5%)		59
(88.0%)		5545
Foreign internshipNo18424
(13.0%)		19
(10.7%)		141
(76.6%)		5445p = 0.011
Yes150
(0.0%)		0
(0.0%)		15
(100.0%)		5555
Σn—total number of respondents. n1+2—number of respondents who selected options 1 or 2 on the scale in response to a given question. n3—number of respondents who selected option 3 on the scale in response to a given question. n4+5—number of respondents who selected option 4 or 5 on the scale in response to a given question. ns—no statistically significant differences. Workplace 1: were prepared on the basis of definitions from the Polish Central Statistical Office (small towns—population below 20,000 inhabitants; medium towns—population 20,000–100,000 inhabitants; large towns—population above 100,000 inhabitants) [28].
Table
Table 3. The purpose of contact with physicians.
Table 3. The purpose of contact with physicians.
VariablesResults
How Often in the Last Year Have You Made Contact with Physicians Regarding (1—Very Rarely, 5—Very Often)
Σnn1+2n3n4+5DominantMedianLower QuartileUpper Quartile
formal aspects
correction of a prescription error20717
(8.2%)		36
(17.4%)		154
(74.4%)		5435
consultation on drug availability at the pharmacy20794
(45.4%)		53
(25.6%)		60
(29.0%)		1314
substantive aspects
consultation on drug dosage207150
(72.5%)		40
(19.3%)		17
(8.2%)		1213
consultation on the choice of a drug substance207189
(91.3%)		14
(6.8%)		4
(1.9%)		1111
consultation on drug interactions197188
(95.5%)		5
(2.5%)		4
(2.0%)		1111
consultation on side effects207202
(97.6%)		2
(2.0%)		3
(1.4%)		1111
prescription drug consultation182127
(69.8%)		47
(25.8%)		8
(4.4%)		1213
Σn—total number of respondents. n1+2—number of respondents who selected options 1 or 2 on the scale in response to a given question. n3—number of respondents who selected option 3 on the scale in response to a given question. n4+5—number of respondents who selected option 4 or 5 on the scale in response to a given question.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zielińska-Tomczak, Ł.; Cerbin-Koczorowska, M.; Przymuszała, P.; Gałązka, N.; Marciniak, R. Pharmacists’ Perspectives on Interprofessional Collaboration with Physicians in Poland: A Quantitative Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9686. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189686

AMA Style

Zielińska-Tomczak Ł, Cerbin-Koczorowska M, Przymuszała P, Gałązka N, Marciniak R. Pharmacists’ Perspectives on Interprofessional Collaboration with Physicians in Poland: A Quantitative Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(18):9686. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189686

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zielińska-Tomczak, Łucja, Magdalena Cerbin-Koczorowska, Piotr Przymuszała, Natalia Gałązka, and Ryszard Marciniak. 2021. "Pharmacists’ Perspectives on Interprofessional Collaboration with Physicians in Poland: A Quantitative Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 18: 9686. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189686

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop