Pharmacists views on participating in New Zealand’s community pharmacy anticoagulation management service: a mixed-methods study

Background Optimal anticoagulation management is key for improving outcomes. The Community Pharmacy Anticoagulation Management Service (CPAMS) has beneficial effects on anticoagulant management. However, limited research exists on pharmacists’ views of CPAMS provision, particularly the perspectives of pharmacists who do not provide CPAMS. Objectives To explore the experience and attitudes of pharmacists who do and do not provide CPAMS, and to identify factors that may influence further uptake of CPAMS. Setting CPAMS providing and non-providing pharmacies throughout New Zealand. Methods A mixed-methods study design was employed. Separate online surveys were conducted with CPAMS providers (N = 35) and non-providers (N = 73) to explore their views on the service. Twelve interviews were conducted with purposively selected participants, equally distributed between CPAMS providers and non-providers, to gain further insight into the issues surrounding CPAMS provision. Quantitative data were analysed using student’s t-test and Mann Whitney U-test, and thematic analysis was used for qualitative data. Main outcome measure Experiences of and attitudes towards CPAMS. Results Our survey findings demonstrated that community pharmacists have high self-efficacy and motivation to providing CPAMS, and CPAMS had increased job satisfaction amongst providers. The overwhelming majority of CPAMS providers’ survey participants believed that CPAMS improves the pharmacist–patient relationship, allowing them to assist patients with other aspects of their healthcare. Most non-provider survey participants also believed that their patients would benefit from CPAMS. The two most frequently reported barriers by non-providers survey participants were remuneration and staffing of pharmacists. The interview findings fell within five overarching themes: self-efficacy, CPAMS benefits to patients, barriers to providing CPAMS, the impact of CPAMS on pharmacist–patient and pharmacist–general practitioner relationships. Overall, the current funding model, the capping on the number of enrolled patients, and staffing were the main factors perceived by interview participants preventing the further uptake and implementation of CPAMS. CPAMS non-providers are willing to provide CPAMS; the main factor preventing this is availability of contracts. Conclusions Overall, pharmacists have favourable experiences of and attitudes towards CPAMS and strongly supported its wider implementation. Promoting the benefits and addressing the barriers highlighted in this study may lead to wider implementation of CPAMS.