View Item 

Show simple item record

How do pharmacists select antimicrobials? A model of pharmacists’ therapeutic reasoning processes
dc.contributor.authorGruenberg, Katherine
dc.contributor.authorAbdoler, Emily
dc.contributor.authorO’Brien, Bridget C.
dc.contributor.authorSchwartz, Brian S.
dc.contributor.authorMacDougall, Conan
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-08T18:03:37Z
dc.date.available2023-05-08 14:03:35en
dc.date.available2022-04-08T18:03:37Z
dc.date.issued2022-04
dc.identifier.citationGruenberg, Katherine; Abdoler, Emily; O’Brien, Bridget C.; Schwartz, Brian S.; MacDougall, Conan (2022). "How do pharmacists select antimicrobials? A model of pharmacists’ therapeutic reasoning processes." Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy 5(4): 398-405.
dc.identifier.issn2574-9870
dc.identifier.issn2574-9870
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/172005
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTIONClinicians engage in clinical reasoning, comprised of both diagnostic and therapeutic components, when caring for patients. While diagnostic reasoning has been extensively investigated, relatively few studies have examined how clinicians make treatment decisions. Recent work has explored how physicians engage in therapeutic reasoning while selecting antimicrobials. However, understanding pharmacists’ antimicrobial reasoning is equally important due to their role in ensuring appropriate antimicrobial use. Therefore, we aimed to further our understanding of antimicrobial reasoning in pharmacists and compare their reasoning processes to physicians.METHODSWith a postpositivist orientation and using a general qualitative approach, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with hospital‐based pharmacists specializing in infectious diseases or other hospital‐based specialties. Participants narrated their thought processes while selecting antimicrobials for three case vignettes. We analyzed transcripts iteratively using a code book from a prior study of antimicrobial reasoning in physicians as a sensitizing framework.RESULTSParticipants included 11 pharmacists (5 infectious diseases and 6 noninfectious diseases pharmacists). Overall, participants’ responses reflected a three‐step reasoning process: Naming the Syndrome, Delineating Pathogens, and Selecting the Antimicrobial. Patient‐, syndrome‐, and system‐based factors interacted with drug characteristics to influence the selection of specific antimicrobial regimens.CONCLUSIONWe identified a framework for pharmacists’ antimicrobial therapeutic reasoning similar to physicians’ reasoning, with some nuances that may be attributable to the pharmacists’ role in medication review and antimicrobial stewardship. Application of this framework has the potential to aid in teaching, improve multidisciplinary care, and provide a framework for interprofessional communication.
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
dc.subject.otherpharmacology
dc.subject.otherdecision making
dc.subject.otherclinical skills
dc.titleHow do pharmacists select antimicrobials? A model of pharmacists’ therapeutic reasoning processes
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPharmacy and Pharmacology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/172005/1/jac51580.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/172005/2/jac51580_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/jac5.1580
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBroom A, Kirby E, Gibson AF, Post JJ, Broom J. Myth, manners, and medical ritual: Defensive medicine and the fetish of antibiotics. Qual Health Res. 2017; 27 ( 13 ): 1994 – 2005.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCroskerry P. Achieving quality in clinical decision making: Cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Acad Emerg Med. 2002; 9 ( 11 ): 1184 – 1204.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBissessur SW, Geijteman EC, Al‐Dulaimy M, et al. Therapeutic reasoning: From hiatus to hypothetical model. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019; 15: 985 – 989.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCook DA, Sherbino J, Durning SJ. Management reasoning: Beyond the diagnosis. JAMA. 2018; 319 ( 22 ): 2267 – 2268.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchmidt HG, Mamede S. How to improve the teaching of clinical reasoning: A narrative review and a proposal. Med Educ. 2015; 49: 961 – 973.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCook DA, Durning SJ, Sherbino J, Gruppen LD. Management reasoning: Implications for health professions educators and a research agenda. Acad Med. 2019; 94 ( 9 ): 1310 – 1316.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCroft H, Gilligan C, Rasiah R, Levett‐Jones T, Schneider J. Thinking in pharmacy practice: A study of community pharmacists’ clinical reasoning in medication supply using the think‐aloud method. Pharm J Pharm Educ Pract. 2017; 6 ( 1 ): 1.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNusair MB, Guirguis LM. How pharmacists check the appropriateness of drug therapy? Observations in community pharmacy. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2017; 13 ( 2 ): 349 – 357.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJoint Commission of Pharmacy Practitioners. Pharmacists’ patient care process [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2021 June 19]. Available from: https://jcpp.net/patient-care-process/
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarris IM, Phillips B, Boyce E, et al. Clinical pharmacy should adopt a consistent process of direct patient care. Pharmacother. 2014; 34 ( 8 ): e133 – e148.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSun L, Klein EY, Laxminarayan R. Seasonality and temporal correlation between community antibiotic use and resistance in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 55: 687 – 694.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaber M, Levin BR, Kramarz P. Antibiotic control of antibiotic resistance in hospitals: A simulation study. BMC Infect Dis. 2010; 10: 254.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCharani E, Ahmad R, Rawson TM, Castro‐Sanchèz E, Tarrant C, Holmes AH. The differences in antibiotic decision‐making between acute surgical and acute medical teams: An ethnographic study of culture and team dynamics. Clin Infect Dis. 2019; 69 ( 1 ): 12 – 20.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMay L, Gudger G, Armstrong P, et al. Multisite exploration of clinical decision making for antibiotic use by emergency medicine providers using quantitative and qualitative methods. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014; 35 ( 9 ): 1114 – 1125.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCreswell J, Poth C. Chapter 2, Philosophical assumptions and interpretive frameworks. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2018; p. 15 – 40.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBradbury‐Jones C, Breckenridge J, Clark MT, Herber OR, Wagstaff C, Taylor J. The state of qualitative research in health and social science literature: A focused mapping review and synthesis. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017; 20 ( 6 ): 627 – 645.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBowen GA. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int J Qual Methods. 2016; 5 ( 3 ): 12 – 23.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWright DFB, Anakin MG, Duffull SB. A philosophical framework for pharmacy in the 21st century guided by ethical principles. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018; 14 ( 3 ): 309 – 316.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Pharmacists Association. Pharmacists’ impact on patient safety [Internet] Washington, DC; 2016. [cited 2021 June 19] Available from: https://www.pharmacist.com/Practice/Patient-Care-Services/Medication-Safety-Access/Patient-Safety.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMekonnen AB, McLaughlan AJ, Brien JE. Effectiveness of pharmacist‐led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ Open. 2016; 6 ( 2 ): e010003.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarcum JA. An integrated model of clinical reasoning: Dual‐process theory of cognition and metacognition. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012; 18 ( 5 ): 954 – 961.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePersky AM, Robinson JD. Moving from novice to expertise and its implications for instruction. Am J Pharm Educ. 2017; 81 ( 9 ): 6065.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKosior K, Wall T, Ferrero S. The role of metacognition in teaching clinical reasoning: Theory to practice. Educ Health Prof. 2019; 2 ( 2 ): 108 – 114.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarlam TF, Cosgrove SE, Abbo LM, et al. Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: Guidelines by the infectious diseases society of America and the society for healthcare epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 62 ( 10 ): e51 – e77.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePollack LA, Srinivasan A. Core elements of hospital antibiotic stewardship programs from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2014; 59: S97 – S100.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbdoler EA, O’Brien B, Schwartz BS. Following the script: An exploratory study of the therapeutic reasoning underlying physicians’ choice of antimicrobial therapy. Acad Med. 2020; 95 ( 8 ): 1238 – 1247.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchmidt HG, Norman GR, Boshuizen HP. A cognitive perspective on medical expertise: Theory and implication. Acad Med. 1990; 65 ( 10 ): 611 – 621.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceElstein AS, Schwarz A. Clinical problem solving and diagnostic decision making: Selective review of the cognitive literature. BMJ. 2002; 324 ( 7339 ): 729 – 732.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCroskerry P. A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Acad Med. 2009; 84 ( 8 ): 1022 – 1028.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWoods NN, Mylopoulos M. How to improve the teaching of clinical reasoning: From processing to preparation. Med Educ. 2015; 49: 952 – 953.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRencic J. Twelve tips for teaching expertise in clinical reasoning. Med Teach. 2011; 33: 887 – 892.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox M, Irby DM, Bowen JL. Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355: 2217 – 2225.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScott IA. Errors in clinical reasoning: Causes and remedial strategies. BMJ. 2009; 338: b1860.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
jac51580.pdf
Size:
703.6KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
jac51580_am.pdf
Size:
440.7KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.