OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the incidence of unintentional discrepancies (medication errors), types of medication errors with its potential severity of patient harm and acceptance rate of pharmaceutical care interventions.
METHODS: A four-month cross-sectional study was conducted in the general medical wards of a tertiary hospital. All newly admitted patients with at least one prescription medication were recruited via purposive sampling. Medication history assessments were done by clinical pharmacists within 24 hours or as soon as possible after admission. Pharmacist-acquired medication histories were then compared with in-patient medication charts to detect discrepancies. Verification of the discrepancies, interventions, and assessment of the potential severity of patient harm resulting from medication errors were collaboratively carried out with the treating doctors.
RESULTS: There were 990 medication discrepancies detected among 390 patients recruited in this study. One hundred and thirty-five (13.6%) medication errors were detected in 93 (23.8%) patients (1.45 errors per patient). These were mostly contributed by medication omissions (79.3%), followed by dosing errors (9.6%). Among these errors, 88.2% were considered "significant" or "serious" but none were "life-threatening." Most (83%) of the pharmaceutical interventions were accepted by the doctors.
CONCLUSION: Medication history assessment by pharmacists proved vital in detecting medication errors, mostly medication omissions. Majority of the errors intervened by pharmacists were accepted by the doctors which prevented potential significant or serious patient harm.
METHODS: Secondary data analysis was performed using data from the National Health and Morbidity Survey 2019, a nationwide cross-sectional household survey that used a two-stage stratified random sampling design. Adults aged 18 years and over were included in the analysis. Respondents who reported visiting the community pharmacy for health purposes two weeks prior to the study were considered as users. Complex sample descriptive statistics were used to describe the respondents' characteristics. Logistic regression analyses were employed to determine factors associated with community pharmacy utilisation.
RESULTS: Of the 11,155 respondents interviewed, 10.3 % reported community pharmacy utilisation for health purposes. Females (OR = 1.41, 95 % CI = 1.14, 1.73), those with tertiary education (OR = 2.03, 95 % CI = 1.26, 3.29), urban dwellers (OR = 1.42, 95 % CI = 1.13, 1.79), and those with self-reported health problems (OR = 7.62, 95 % CI = 6.05, 9.59) were more likely to utilise the community pharmacy.
CONCLUSIONS: Demographic and socioeconomic factors were important determinants of community pharmacy utilisation in Malaysia with sex, age, education level, locality, and self-reported health problems as the associated factors. These findings serve as evidence for policy interventions, crucial for improvements in accessibility to healthcare services.
METHODS: This qualitative interview study was conducted among final year pharmacy students. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling until data saturation (i.e., when additional interviews didn't lead to any new themes). All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and evaluated by thematic analysis.
KEY FINDINGS: Twenty-two final year pharmacy students were interviewed. Fifteen of them preferred the government sector as their choice training, three chose the community sector, two preferred private hospitals and another two preferred the pharmaceutical industry. The majority of the students gave positive feedback towards the liberalization of PRP training sites. Most of them chose clinical pharmacy as their preferred training site despite knowing of the saturation issue in government hospitals. This was mainly due to the opportunity to gain clinical experience and knowledge from the government sector. A small number of students preferred the pharmaceutical industry based on their personal interests and opportunities for career advancement.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacy students generally chose their PRP training site based on personal interest, future career advancement and working environment. A better understanding of career pathways and opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry by the students is required.
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: 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: A cross-sectional study was conducted. The developed tool consists of 28 items to evaluate believed advantages toward drive-thru community pharmacy services, believed disadvantages toward drive-thru community pharmacy services, differences between drive-thru community pharmacy services and instore drug refill services, perceptions toward drive-thru community pharmacy services and feelings regarding how the introduction of drive-thru pharmacy services may affect the image of community pharmacists. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to identify the factors of the developed tool, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) evaluated the model fitness.
RESULTS: The EFA identified five elements and 25 items for the tool, and through CFA results, the observed model of the 25 items structure of the tool was verified as an excellent fit for the data [χ2 (265, N = 565) = 819.586, p < 0.001, IFI = 0.931, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.064]. The results of the CFA indicated a good model fit between the observed model and the proposed model. The internal reliability of the entire tool and each factor was very satisfactory as Cronbach's Alpha for the whole structured tool was 0.843 and for each factor was as follows, first factor (believed advantages) = 0.909, second factor (believed disadvantages) = 0.921, third factor (differences between drive-thru and instore refill) = 0.647, fourth factor (perceptions) = 0.926, and fifth factor (feelings) = 0.681.
CONCLUSION: The developed and validated tool would be valuable for assessing the public's perceptions of the drive-thru community pharmacy service during COVID-19 and future pandemics.
Methods: A qualitative design was conducted on community pharmacists in Baghdad, Iraq. Pharmacists were selected conveniently from different gender, age group, pharmacy type and years of experience. Face-to-face semi-structure interview was used with all the pharmacists to get in-depth understanding about their dispensing practice of antibiotics without prescription in community pharmacy. The data was coded and classified for thematic analysis.
Results: This study found that dispensing of antibiotics without prescription was a common practice in community pharmacy. Pharmacists' perception towards dispensing antibiotics without prescription was associated with the medical condition, safety and efficacy of antibiotics, patients request antibiotics by name, emergency cases, regular customer, promotions from pharmaceutical companies, saving time and cost, brand medications, and poor healthcare services. In addition, there were inadequate knowledge about antibiotic resistance and lack of awareness about antibiotic stewardship leading to inappropriate dispensing practice.
Conclusions: Community pharmacists have poor perception towards dispensing antibiotics without prescription. Educational interventions about antibiotics use focusing on community pharmacists are needed. This will help to optimize the practice of dispensing of antibiotics in the community. In addition, training programs about antibiotic resistance are important to enhance pharmacists' understanding about antibiotic stewardship.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Thailand with 130 stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, pharmacy experts, educators, health care providers, patients, students and parents) from August-October 2013. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Three main themes were derived from the findings: 1. influences on curriculum change (e.g., the needs of pharmacists to provide better patient care, the US-Thai consortium for the development of pharmacy education); 2. perceived benefits (e.g., improve pharmacy competencies from generalists to specialists, ready to work after graduation, providing a high quality of patient care); and 3. concerns (e.g., the higher costs of study for a longer period of time, the mismatch between the pharmacy graduates' competency and the job market's needs, insufficient preceptors and training sites, lack of practical experience of the faculty members and issues related to the separate licenses that are necessary due to the difference in the graduates' specialties).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to highlight the issues surrounding the transition to the 6-year PharmD programme in Thailand, which was initiated due to the need for higher levels of competency among the nation's pharmacists. The transition was influenced by many factors. Many participants perceived benefits from the new pharmacy curriculum. However, some participants were concerned about this transition. Although most of the respondents accepted the need to go forward to the 6-year PharmD programme, designing an effective curriculum, providing a sufficient number of qualified PharmD preceptors, determining certain competencies of pharmacists in different practices and monitoring the quality of pharmacy education still need to be addressed during this transitional stage of pharmacy education in Thailand.