4.2 Review

Physicians and community pharmacists collaboration in primary care: A review of specific models

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2014.12.003

关键词

Primary care; Physicians; Community pharmacists; Collaboration; Interprofessional relations; Models

资金

  1. Region Rhone-Alps under the CIBLE [RA0000R291]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Since 2008, French healthcare reform encourages community pharmacists (CP) to develop collaborative care with other health care providers through new cognitive pharmacy services. Objectives: This review is aimed to identify theoretical models that have been developed to understand the physician-CP collaboration (PCPC) and to identify the associated determinants. Methods: English-written abstracts research was conducted on Pubmed/Medline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and CINAHL from January 1990 to June 2013. Keywords were based on common terminology of inter-professional relations and community pharmacy. Results: Of the 1545 single articles identified, the final review was conducted on 16 articles. Four specific models of collaboration centered on PCPC were identified: (i) the Collaborative Working Relationship Model (CWR), (ii) the Conceptual model of GPCP collaboration, (iii) the CP Attitudes towards Collaboration with GPs Model (ATC-P), (iv) the GP Attitudes towards collaboration with CPs (ATC-GP). The analysis of these four PCPC models shows that their respective factors might cover the same concepts, especially for relational and interactional determinants. These key elements are: trust, interdependence, perceptions and expectations about the other HCP, skills, interest for collaborative practice, role definition and communication. Conclusion: A meta-model for PCPC has been postulated. It can be used for qualitative exploration of PCPC, in a context of implementation of collaborative practice including CPs, in the primary care. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据