With a new role comes new responsibilities: interviews to explore what Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioners know and understand about patient safeguarding
Authors: Greenwood D , Steinke D , Martin S , Norton G , Tully M P 
Published: April 2022

Abstract

Introduction
In the UK, pharmacists with additional clinical skills now work in emergency departments (1). Known as Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioners (EDPPs), the role was developed in response to a shortage of doctors and nurses. EDPPs carry out activities typical of traditional hospital pharmacists, but also novel ‘practitioner’ activities such as examining patients. They also may act as designated care providers with overall responsibility for patients, which includes a responsibility to safeguard patients (children and vulnerable adults) from harm – as is required of other healthcare professionals who take on that role. The initial safeguarding process comprises four stages: recognition, ensuring safety, documentation and escalation. Professional competence, i.e. to safeguard patients, is underpinned by knowledge of the subject, but also the ability to apply that knowledge (2).

Aim
To investigate what EDPPs know and understand about safeguarding vulnerable children and adults.

Methods
Past and current students of an ‘Advanced Specialist Training in Emergency Medicine’ programme, which delivers additional clinical skills to pharmacists, were interviewed to explore their knowledge and understanding of safeguarding. Interview questions were developed from review of relevant literature, as were four vignettes which were used to further explore participants’ understanding i.e. apply their knowledge of safeguarding to realistic scenarios. Vignettes concerned victims of: theft, sexual abuse, physical abuse and a medication error. A Social Worker reviewed the vignettes for plausibility, suggesting changes e.g. to victim characteristics. The interview schedule and vignettes were then piloted by two acute medicine pharmacists. For analysis, interview transcripts were reviewed with template analysis used to code data to four a priori themes (stages of the initial safeguarding process), and new themes that emerged throughout the process.

Results
Thirteen EDPPs were interviewed (four in 2016, and then a further nine in 2019 following delays due to competing research commitments). In addition to the four a priori themes, a further six themes were identified: scope of safeguarding; responsibility to safeguard; resources and setting; education, training and experiential learning; multidisciplinary working and communication; and culture. Overall, participants had a broad and often detailed knowledge of safeguarding. All four stages were frequently described which demonstrates EDPPs awareness of how safeguarding concerns are both recognised and responded to. Somewhat unsurprisingly, participants were generally more comfortable when responding to medicines related concerns although whether these should be reported via safeguarding or error systems is currently unclear. Several participants were more involved with the formal escalation of issues, and one participant had safeguarding issues escalated to them and had given evidence in court.

Conclusion
Although interview phases were three years apart, no thematic differences were identified between these phases and thematic saturation was also achieved. EDPPs interviewed were aware of the different types of maltreatment and the safeguarding process. Safeguarding training for pharmacists should include a focus on the importance of good inter-professional communication. Training should also include information about the types of medication error (e.g. type and severity) that require escalation via safeguarding, but these first need to be confirmed through future research.

References
(1) Greenwood D, Tully MP, Martin S, Steinke D. The description and definition of Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioners in the United Kingdom (the ENDPAPER study). International journal of clinical pharmacy. 2019 Apr;41(2):434-44.
(2) James KL, Davies JG, Kinchin I, Patel JP, Whittlesea C. Understanding vs. competency: the case of accuracy checking dispensed medicines in pharmacy. Advances in health sciences education. 2010 Dec;15(5):735-47.