MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted amongst all government pharmacists in Perak. We excluded those who did not consent or were unreachable electronically. The researchers provided an online link that was forwarded to all heads of departments in Perak via social media. The respondents answered their demographic details, questions assessing their knowledge of NSI transmissible diseases, needle-stick handling practices, detail experiences of them suffering an NSI (all self-developed questionnaires), and their barriers in reporting an NSI (validated questionnaire). All responses were auto-tabulated in an excel sheet. A sample size of 516 pharmacists was needed for this study. A respondent was deemed to have inadequate knowledge when they answered any question wrongly about NSI knowledge-related questions and inappropriate practice in needle handling when respondents answered any questions wrongly for questions assessing practices.
RESULTS: A total of 524 pharmacists participated. The overall prevalence of NSI was 23.1% (n=121), of which, those with contaminated NSI were 10.3% (n=54, 95%CI: 7.9-13.30). Twothirds of the participants (66.6%) had inadequate knowledge and nearly all of them were unable to describe the appropriate needle-handling practices (94.7%). Amongst the reported barriers were "not knowing whose duty it was to report an NSI" (45.5%) and "busy schedules" (44.7%).
CONCLUSION: One in every five pharmacists in the state of Perak had a history of NSI, and 1 in every 10 had sustained a contaminated NSI. The barriers to reporting a NSI were mainly due to uncertainty about whose responsibility to report the incident and being too busy to report it.
OBJECTIVES: To assess UAE community pharmacists' knowledge, toward women's issues in epilepsy.
METHODS: a cross-sectional research method was employed. A team of seven pharmacy students in their final year visited a randomly selected sample of community pharmacies in the UAE and face-to-face interviews were conducted with the pharmacists using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire includes two parts; Eight questions designed to elicit data about the demographics of the study participants and 12 questions eliciting insights into the participants' knowledge of women's issues in epilepsy.
RESULTS: A total of 412 community pharmacist were recruited in the study. The overall level of knowledge about women's issues in epilepsy was good and the average knowledge score was 81% with a 95% confidence interval (CI) [79.1, 82.7%]. The results of multivariate analysis showed higher knowledge scores in chain pharmacies (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.12-1.67), Chief pharmacists (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.01-2.06), Pharmacists in charge (OR 3.46; 95% CI 2.7-4.45), pharmacists with 1-5 Years of experience (OR 2.87; 95% CI 1.71-4.82), pharmacists with 6-10 Years (OR 2.63; 95% CI 1.58-4.38), pharmacists with >10 years (OR 3.13; 95% CI 2.03-4.83), graduation form regional universities (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.12-1.67), graduation form international universities (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.36-2.20) and receiving a training on epilepsy (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.12-1.67).
CONCLUSION: While the findings reveal an overall promising level of knowledge among community pharmacists regarding the issues faced by women with epilepsy, pinpointing which clinical and demographic factors have the most significant impact on this knowledge would permit the implementation of tailored educational interventions. Workshops and modules targeting the issues faced by women with epilepsy would further raise the knowledge and competence among community pharmacists in this area, ensuring better pharmaceutical care for this population.
AIM: Our aim is to develop and validate a pharmaceutical assessment screening tool (PAST) to guide medical ward pharmacists in our local hospitals to effectively prioritise patient care.
METHOD: This study involved 2 major phases; (1) development of PAST through literature review and group discussion, (2) validation of PAST using a three-round Delphi survey. Twenty-four experts were invited by email to participate in the Delphi survey. In each round, experts were required to rate the relevance and completeness of PAST criteria and were given chance for open feedback. The 75% consensus benchmark was set and criteria with achieved consensus were retained in PAST. Experts' suggestions were considered and added into PAST for rating. After each round, experts were provided with anonymised feedback and results from the previous round.
RESULTS: Three Delphi rounds resulted in the final tool (rearranged as mnemonic 'STORIMAP'). STORIMAP consists of 8 main criteria with 29 subcomponents. Marks are allocated for each criteria in STORIMAP which can be combined to a total of 15 marks. Patient acuity level is determined based on the final score and clerking priority is assigned accordingly.
CONCLUSION: STORIMAP potentially serves as a useful tool to guide medical ward pharmacists to prioritise patients effectively, hence establishing acuity-based pharmaceutical care.
METHODS: Qualitative study using one-to-one semi-structured interviews conducted with 22 HCPs involved in the care of diabetic patients (6 endocrinologists, 4 general practitioners, 4 nurses and 8 pharmacists). Participants were recruited through general practices, community pharmacies and a diabetic centre in Saudi Arabia. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Five key themes resulted from the analysis. HCPs generally demonstrated negative perceptions toward CAM, particularly regarding their evidence-based effectiveness and safety. Participants described having limited interactions with diabetic patients regarding CAM use due to HCPs' lack of knowledge about CAM, limited consultation time and strict consultation protocols. Participants perceived convenience as the reason why patients use CAM. They believed many users lacked patience with prescribed medications to deliver favourable clinical outcomes and resorted to CAM use.
CONCLUSIONS: HCPs have noted inadequate engagement with diabetic patients regarding CAM due to a lack of knowledge and resources. To ensure the safe use of CAM in diabetes and optimize prescribed treatment outcomes, one must address the communication gap by implementing a flexible consultation protocol and duration. Additionally, culturally sensitive, and evidence-based information should be available to HCPs and diabetic patients.
Methods: The modified Delphi method was used to obtain the consensus. The initial indicators, based on a literature review, were evaluated and assessed by members of the expert panel through three rounds of repetition until the consensus was reached. The expert panel members were selected based on their knowledge of or expertise in pharmacy service performance and geographical considerations. Analysis of the expert panel consensus level was determined by calculating the mean and interquartile range.
Results: Fifteen expert panel members started the first round (93.7% of the 16 targets) with 12 of them (75%) completing the third round of the modified Delphi method. Three expert panel members were representatives of the Regency Health Office, and the others were pharmacist practitioners at primary health centres from three different regencies. The consensus results were 26 indicators of drug management, 19 indicators of clinical pharmacy services, and two indicators of overall pharmacy performance.
Conclusion: The consensus indicators for measuring drug management, clinical pharmacy services, and overall pharmacy performance can be used as a reference and standard to measure the quality of pharmacy services at primary health centres. Therefore, the measurement results are more relevant if compared between one and other studies.
AIM: To assess the level of job satisfaction and perception of Provisionally Registered Pharmacists (PRP) towards the internship training provided.
METHODS: A cross-sectional nationwide survey was conducted amongst all PRPs undergoing training between December 2015 and February 2016 to assess their level of job satisfaction and perception towards the training requirements stipulated by the Pharmacy Board of Malaysia.
RESULTS: A total of 733 PRPs participated in the survey and the response rate was 95.8%. On the basis of the response received, 92.5% (n = 678) felt that the one year training period was 'just nice', 30.5% (n = 223) felt that the logbooks were 'too complicated', and 33.2% (n = 241) said the targets set by the Pharmacy Board of Malaysia were 'too high'. On a scale of 1 to 5, respondents rated 3.32 (SD 0.54) for mean score of job satisfaction. Significant factors influencing mean score of job satisfaction were: perceived fairness at the work place; perceived self-competence after one year of training; preceptors' competence; and pharmacy as a chosen career pathway.
CONCLUSION: Intern pharmacists were fairly satisfied with the internship training in government facilities in the Ministry of Health, Malaysia. A review of the internship logbooks and the practicality of targets set by the Pharmacy Board warrant further improvement.