Display options
Cite
Bugnon B, Geissbuhler A, Bischoff T, et al. Improving Primary Care Medication Processes by Using Shared Electronic Medication Plans in Switzerland: Lessons Learned From a Participatory Action Research Study. JMIR Form Res. 2021;5(1):e22319doi: 10.2196/22319.
Bugnon, B., Geissbuhler, A., Bischoff, T., Bonnabry, P., & von Plessen, C. (2021). Improving Primary Care Medication Processes by Using Shared Electronic Medication Plans in Switzerland: Lessons Learned From a Participatory Action Research Study. JMIR formative research, 5(1), e22319. https://doi.org/10.2196/22319
Bugnon, Benjamin, et al. "Improving Primary Care Medication Processes by Using Shared Electronic Medication Plans in Switzerland: Lessons Learned From a Participatory Action Research Study." JMIR formative research vol. 5,1 (2021): e22319. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/22319
Bugnon B, Geissbuhler A, Bischoff T, Bonnabry P, von Plessen C. Improving Primary Care Medication Processes by Using Shared Electronic Medication Plans in Switzerland: Lessons Learned From a Participatory Action Research Study. JMIR Form Res. 2021 Jan 07;5(1):e22319. doi: 10.2196/22319. PMID: 33410753; PMCID: PMC7819781.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

JMIR Form Res. 2021 Jan 07;5(1):e22319. doi: 10.2196/22319.

Improving Primary Care Medication Processes by Using Shared Electronic Medication Plans in Switzerland: Lessons Learned From a Participatory Action Research Study.

JMIR formative research

Benjamin Bugnon, Antoine Geissbuhler, Thomas Bischoff, Pascal Bonnabry, Christian von Plessen

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Western Switzerland, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
  2. Direction Générale de la Santé, État de Vaud, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  3. Department of Radiology and Medical Informatics, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
  4. Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
  5. Center for Primary Care and Public Health, Unisanté, Lausanne, Switzerland.

PMID: 33410753 PMCID: PMC7819781 DOI: 10.2196/22319

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several countries have launched health information technology (HIT) systems for shared electronic medication plans. These systems enable patients and health care professionals to use and manage a common list of current medications across sectors and settings. Shared electronic medication plans have great potential to improve medication management and patient safety, but their integration into complex medication-related processes has proven difficult, and there is little scientific evidence to guide their implementation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to summarize lessons learned from primary care professionals involved in a pioneering pilot project in Switzerland for the systemwide implementation of shared electronic medication plans. We collected experiences, assessed the influences of the local context, and analyzed underlying mechanisms influencing the implementation.

METHODS: In this formative action research study, we followed 5 clusters of health care professionals during 6 months. The clusters represented rural and urban primary care settings. A total of 18 health care professionals (primary care physicians, pharmacists, and nurses) used the pilot version of a shared electronic medication plan on a secure web platform, the precursor of Switzerland's electronic patient record infrastructure. We undertook 3 group interviews with each of the 5 clusters, analyzed the content longitudinally and across clusters, and summarized it into lessons learned.

RESULTS: Participants considered medication plan management, digitalized or not, a core element of good clinical practice. Requirements for the successful implementation of a shared electronic medication plan were the integration into and simplification of clinical routines. Participants underlined the importance of an enabling setting with designated reference professionals and regular high-quality interactions with patients. Such a setting should foster trusting relationships and nurture a culture of safety and data privacy. For participants, the HIT was a necessary but insufficient building block toward better interprofessional communication, especially in transitions. Despite oral and written information, the availability of shared electronic medication plans did not generate spontaneous demand from patients or foster more engagement in their medication management. The variable settings illustrated the diversity of medication management and the need for local adaptations.

CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study present a unique and comprehensive description of the sociotechnical challenges of implementing shared electronic medication plans in primary care. The shared ownership among multiple stakeholders is a core challenge for implementers. No single stakeholder can build and maintain a safe, usable HIT system with up-to-date medication information. Buy-in from all involved health care professionals is necessary for consistent medication reconciliation along the entire care pathway. Implementers must balance the need to change clinical processes to achieve improvements with the need to integrate the shared electronic medication plan into existing routines to facilitate adoption. The lack of patient involvement warrants further study.

©Benjamin Bugnon, Antoine Geissbuhler, Thomas Bischoff, Pascal Bonnabry, Christian von Plessen. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (http://formative.jmir.org), 07.01.2021.

Keywords: Switzerland; complex adaptive system; eHealth; electronic health records; health information technology; implementation; medication; medication list; medication reconciliation; national eHealth strategy; participatory action research; primary care; shared electronic medication plan

References

  1. Adv Health Care Manag. 2013;15:125-61 - PubMed
  2. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020 Oct;16(10):1370-1378 - PubMed
  3. Dan Med J. 2014 May;61(5):A4817 - PubMed
  4. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2013 Oct 23;2(1):41 - PubMed
  5. Ann Pharmacother. 2014 Oct;48(10):1298-312 - PubMed
  6. Int J Med Inform. 2013 May;82(5):e125-38 - PubMed
  7. Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jan;97:266-281 - PubMed
  8. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jul;25(7):509-17 - PubMed
  9. Int J Med Inform. 2016 Sep;93:14-25 - PubMed
  10. Ann Pharmacother. 2010 May;44(5):885-97 - PubMed
  11. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;201:175-80 - PubMed
  12. Health Expect. 2010 Dec;13(4):379-91 - PubMed
  13. Int J Med Inform. 2011 Nov;80(11):775-81 - PubMed
  14. BMJ. 2008 Oct 23;337:a1786 - PubMed
  15. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Dec 20;13:528 - PubMed
  16. Health Policy. 2018 Feb;122(2):69-74 - PubMed
  17. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014 Oct;36(5):933-42 - PubMed
  18. J Healthc Leadersh. 2019 Mar 29;11:23-41 - PubMed
  19. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Oct;72(10):1229-1237 - PubMed
  20. Int J Med Inform. 2013 May;82(5):e149-60 - PubMed
  21. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Jul;27(7):539-546 - PubMed
  22. Appl Clin Inform. 2014 Jun 04;5(2):527-37 - PubMed
  23. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:1090 - PubMed
  24. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2013 Jun;38(3):219-24 - PubMed
  25. BMJ Open. 2019 May 27;9(5):e026259 - PubMed
  26. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Sep;25(9):726-30 - PubMed
  27. Int J Integr Care. 2012 Sep 18;12:e190 - PubMed
  28. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Aug;24(4):681-687 - PubMed
  29. Int J Med Inform. 2014 Sep;83(9):655-69 - PubMed
  30. Rev Med Suisse. 2013 May 15;9(386):1021-5 - PubMed
  31. Health Policy Plan. 2012 Aug;27(5):365-73 - PubMed
  32. NPJ Digit Med. 2018 Sep 20;1:48 - PubMed
  33. Ann Pharmacother. 2002 Jul-Aug;36(7-8):1238-48 - PubMed
  34. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 23;8:CD010791 - PubMed
  35. Qual Manag Health Care. 2019 Apr/Jun;28(2):84-95 - PubMed
  36. CMAJ. 2005 Aug 30;173(5):510-5 - PubMed
  37. Healthc Q. 2011;14(1):39-45 - PubMed
  38. BMJ. 2003 Nov 22;327(7425):1219-21 - PubMed
  39. BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Feb;30(2):96-105 - PubMed
  40. BMC Med. 2009 Sep 21;7:50 - PubMed
  41. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 05;13(4):e111 - PubMed
  42. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21 Suppl 2:S1-8 - PubMed
  43. BMJ. 2010 Aug 27;341:c4413 - PubMed
  44. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2014 Oct 01;2(3):1080 - PubMed
  45. Health Policy Plan. 2012 Oct;27 Suppl 4:iv54-61 - PubMed
  46. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019 Jun;41(3):687-690 - PubMed
  47. Milbank Q. 2012 Sep;90(3):421-56 - PubMed
  48. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Feb;18(1):202-8 - PubMed
  49. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Nov 21;13:485 - PubMed
  50. Int J Med Inform. 2010 Mar;79(3):211-22 - PubMed
  51. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013 Dec;35(6):1040-52 - PubMed
  52. Lancet. 2017 Apr 29;389(10080):1680-1681 - PubMed

Publication Types