The following ahead-of-print manuscripts are available for download below. All manuscripts listed are under copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine. The final published version of each manuscript will be indexed in PubMed. Please note ahead-of-print manuscripts are not copy edited and information could change during the publishing process.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Changing Pharmaceutical Industry Interaction in US Family Medicine Residencies: A CERA Study
Steven R. Brown, MD, FAAFP and Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD
Corresponding Author: Steven R. Brown, MD, FAAFP; Banner Good Samaritan Family Medicine Residency. Email: Steven.Brown@bannerhealth.com
Published Version: | FULL PDF | Ahead of Print Version: | FULL PDF |
Background: Pharmaceutical interaction in US residencies is common. This study explores the extent and type of learner interactions in US family medicine residencies with the pharmaceutical industry and compares interactions from 2008, 2013, and 2019. Methods: We surveyed program directors of 628 family medicine residencies with 8 questions using the 2019 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance Survey and compared the responses to 2008 and 2013 results. Results: The survey response rate was 39%; 81% of responding residencies did not allow food or gifts, 86% did not allow drug samples, 84% did not allow industry to interact with medical students or residents, and 81% did not allow industry-sponsored residency activities. These numbers were statistically significantly higher than both 2008 and 2013. In 2019, 151 responding programs (64%) were pharma-free, that is, they answered “No” to all 4 questions about interactions. Pharma-free residencies were increased in 2019 compared with 26% in 2008% and 49% in 2013. University-based family medicine programs were more likely to be pharma-free. Only 21% of responding programs had a formal curriculum that explores the interaction between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. Factors cited for decreasing interaction included: institutional policy, ethical concerns, faculty input, and local response to national legislation. Conclusions: Interaction between trainees in US family medicine residencies and the pharmaceutical industry continued to decrease. A changing national legislative landscape combined with institutional policies and concerns about industry influence on prescribing habits may be important factors driving the limiting of interactions.
BRIEF REPORT
Primary Care Physicians’ Perspective on Pharmacists Delivering Vaccines to Adults
Christine E. MacBrayne, PharmD, MSCS; Laura P. Hurley, MD, MPH; Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH; Jessica R. Cataldi, MD, MSCS; Lori A. Crane, PhD, MPH; Carol Gorman, BA; Michaela Brtnikova, PhD, MPH; Brenda L. Beaty, MSPH; Allison Kempe, MD, MPH
Corresponding Author: Christine MacBrayne, PharmD, MSCS, BCIDP; Children’s Hospital Colorado. Email: Christine.macbrayne@childrenscolorad.org
Publication Date: March 11, 2021
Ahead of Print Version: | FULL PDF |
Introduction: Since 2009, pharmacists in all fifty states have been authorized to provide vaccinations to adults in some capacity. The objective of this study was to assess primary care physicians’ (PCPs) experiences with and attitudes about pharmacists administering vaccinations to their adult patients. Methods: Internet and mail survey from January-February 2019 of PCPs representative of the American College of Physicians’ and American Academy of Family Physicians’ memberships. Results: Response rate was 69% (642/926). Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed (79% ‘Strongly,’ 19% ‘Somewhat’) that it is their responsibility to assure that their adult patients receive recommended vaccinations even if they get them outside of their practice. Most respondents agreed that pharmacists either did not have access to patient medical information (33% ‘Strongly’, 45% ‘Somewhat’) or did not have adequate vaccination history (33% ‘Strongly,’ 41% ‘Somewhat’) to determine if an adult needs a vaccination. The majority also agreed that pharmacists did not inform them when vaccinations were given (35% ‘Strongly,’ 39% ‘Somewhat’) and did not enter vaccinations administered into immunization information systems (IIS) (20% ‘Strongly,’ 37% ‘Somewhat’). However, 83% agreed (31% ‘Strongly’, 52% ‘Somewhat’) that it is helpful to have pharmacists share the role of vaccinating adults with physicians. Conclusions: PCPs have mixed feelings about pharmacists delivering vaccines to adults. Universal use of IIS by pharmacists could partially address physicians’ concerns by providing a systematic way for pharmacists and physicians to share patient vaccination histories.