Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the drive-through pharmacy service in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Malaysia.
Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted from July to December 2018. The questionnaire was developed and underwent thorough validation process which yielded a Cronbach's alpha reliability score of 0.9130. Satisfaction was calculated by mean percentage score (0% (dissatisfied) to 100% (satisfied). All data were analysed descriptively and thematic analysis was used in analysing open-ended question.
Results: Compliance in obtaining medication was at 96.3% with a given two-week grace collection period. Insufficient quantity of medications (33.3%) was the highest near-missed medication errors occurred at the drive-through pharmacy. The mean satisfaction percentage score for all patients were 76.6% ± 8.1. A total of 69.2% (n = 83) were "very satisfied" while 30.8% (n = 37) were "satisfied" with the service. Among the reasons for satisfaction are convenience in getting medication refills (n = 74, 62%), short waiting time (n = 75, 63%) and knowledgeable dispensers (n = 87, 73%). A handful of patients were "dissatisfied" with the opening hours (n = 14, 11.7%) and the location of the drive-through pharmacy service (n = 19, 15.8%).
Conclusion: Compliance in medication collection is acceptable within stipulated grace period. Despite low occurrence, identification of near-missed medication errors provides useful insights for future improvement of the service. Generally, our patients are satisfied with the service. However, we need to re-evaluate on the opening hours and location of the service.
Method: We used pharmacy dispensing data of 1461 eligible T2DM patients from public primary care clinics in Malaysia treated with oral antidiabetic drugs between January 2018 and May 2019. Adherence rates were calculated during the period preceding the HbA1c measurement. Adherence cut-off values for the following conditions were compared: adherence measure (MPR versus PDC), assessment period (90-day versus 180-day), and HbA1c target (⩽7.0% versus ⩽8.0%).
Results: The optimal adherence cut-offs for MPR and PDC in predicting HbA1c ⩽7.0% ranged between 86.1% and 98.3% across the two assessment periods. In predicting HbA1c ⩽8.0%, the optimal adherence cut-offs ranged from 86.1% to 92.8%. The cut-off value was notably higher with PDC as the adherence measure, shorter assessment period, and a stricter HbA1c target (⩽7.0%) as outcome.
Conclusion: We found that optimal adherence cut-off appeared to be slightly higher than the conventional value of 80%. The adherence thresholds may vary depending on the length of assessment period and outcome definition but a reasonably wise cut-off to distinguish good versus poor medication adherence to be clinically meaningful should be at 90%.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated self-administered questionnaire. A convenience sample of 147 community pharmacists working in community pharmacies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed to 147 pharmacists, of whom 104 responded to the survey, a 70.7% response rate. The mean age of participants was 29 years. The majority (n = 101, 98.1%) had graduated with a bachelorette degree and worked in chain pharmacies (n = 68, 66.7%). Only 23 (22.1%) said they were familiar with the ADR reporting process, and only 21 (20.2%) knew that pharmacists can submit ADR reports online. The majority of the participants (n = 90, 86.5%) had never reported ADRs. Reasons for not reporting ADRs most importantly included lack of awareness about the method of reporting (n = 22, 45.9%), misconception that reporting ADRs is the duty of physician and hospital pharmacist (n = 8, 16.6%) and ADRs in community pharmacies are simple and should not be reported (n = 8, 16.6%). The most common approach perceived by community pharmacists for managing patients suffering from ADRs was to refer him/her to a physician (n = 80, 76.9%).
CONCLUSION: The majority of community pharmacists in Riyadh have poor knowledge of the ADR reporting process. Pharmacovigilance authorities should take necessary steps to urgently design interventional programs in order to increase the knowledge and awareness of pharmacists regarding the ADR reporting process.
Materials and Methods: The questionnaire was divided into two sections: the first section assessed the visits to community pharmacies, purpose, interaction with pharmacy staffs, professional fee, and improvements to pharmacy practices; the second section evaluated the characteristics of respondents including an e-consent form. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (version 11.5).
Results: The highest number of respondents (66.1%) consulted with the pharmacists for cough and cold, 33.1% for gastric and stomach ailments, and 28.9% for diarrhea and constipation. Only 34% of cases were handled by the pharmacists, whereas 52.1% by the sales assistant. Approximately 88.5% showed satisfaction with the counseling provided. A total of 46.3% did not know whom they dealt with, whereas 51.2% wanted personal attention of the pharmacists instead of the sales assistants. However, 66.9% of respondents preferred to a private consultation room. Records of only 32.2% of respondents were secured by the pharmacies, whereas 42.1% showed interest to pay a professional fee. Moreover, 83.3% agreed the fee of RM5 only, whereas 20.8% agreed to RM10. Among the respondents, majority agreed to pay a fee willingly, but approximately 30% stayed neutral.
Conclusion: There is a need for the community pharmacists to play vital roles firsthand at the front desk to serve the patients professionally instead of handing over the responsibilities to the sales assistant.
Methods: The study was designed as a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey whereby all (300) community pharmacists practicing in Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia were targeted for data collection. A 35-itemed questionnaire was posted out along with a stamped addressed envelope, invitation letter and support letter. Responses were also accepted via online response. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis. All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v. 20.0.
Results: A total of 67 responses were received with a response rate of 22.3%. The top three frequently health information searched by respondents were medicine information, general healthcare information and disease-related information. High number of respondents agreed that Internet had too much health information to scan through. Gender (p=0.018) showed significant association with visiting established health websites. Meanwhile, statistical significant was observed between age and searching medicine information (p=0.037), undertaking online continuing professional development (p=0.023), as well as searching clinical guidelines (p=0.047). Respondents' education level showed significant association with uncertainty about the reliability of online health information (p=0.023) and unsure about filtering the information (p=0.007).
Conclusions: Majority of the respondents expressed positive perception with the use of Internet for health information. The findings of the current study showed the widely use of Internet for health information among community pharmacists. Hence, this study provides opportunity for future works to further examine community pharmacist's retrieval and appraisal skills for online health information, as well as application of this information into their daily pharmacy practice.