Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Pharmacists' advice and clinical reasoning in relation to cardiovascular disease risk factors - A vignette case study.

Authors
  • Haider, Ibrahim1
  • Luetsch, Karen2
  • 1 School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall St, Woolloongabba, Qld, 4102, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected] , (Australia)
  • 2 School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall St, Woolloongabba, Qld, 4102, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected] , (Australia)
Type
Published Article
Journal
Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP
Publication Date
Apr 01, 2020
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
568–573
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.08.006
PMID: 31383600
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

Pharmacists are increasingly providing public health services like the screening and monitoring for cardiovascular disease risk factors. Information on risk factors should be integrated into an assessment of absolute cardiovascular disease risk. Limited information is available on how pharmacists interpret test results and information related to cardiovascular disease risk factors. To investigate the potential advice to clients featured in vignette case studies and reasoning of pharmacists in relation to multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors. Three vignette case studies representing clients with varying degrees of absolute cardiovascular disease risk who requested blood pressure and cholesterol level testing and related advice were designed and distributed to practicing pharmacists. Vignettes contained all necessary information for absolute cardiovascular disease risk assessment. Two open ended questions asked what advice pharmacists would provide and what influenced their decisions to give specific advice. Responses were analysed using content analysis and assessed for appropriateness in relation to cardiovascular guidelines. Replies of twenty-nine pharmacists were analysed. Advice to hypothetical clients was mainly appropriate when it concentrated on lifestyle modifications. Pharmacists' reasoning indicated a focus on individual risk factors in their decision making on advice rather than consideration of absolute cardiovascular disease risk, which resulted in inappropriate recommendations of referral and follow up. Advice provided in relation to case studies and underlying clinical reasoning indicate potential knowledge gaps, anchoring bias and a framing effect in how pharmacists interpret multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors. Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times