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.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was planned to approach potential respondents for the study. A self-administered questionnaire was delivered to community pharmacists/pharmacy technicians (N=292) practising in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
RESULTS: The overall response to the survey was 69.5% (n=203). The majority of the sample was comprised of pharmacy technicians (152, 74.9%) who possessed a diploma in pharmacy, followed by pharmacists (37, 18.2%) and others (12, 5.9%). Overall, 72 (35.5%) of the respondents disclosed that they had experienced an ADR at their pharmacy, yet more than half (105, 51.7%) were not familiar with the existence of an ADR reporting body in Bangladesh. Exploring the barriers to the reporting of ADRs, it was revealed that the top four barriers to ADR reporting were 'I do not know how to report (Relative Importance Index (RII)=0.998)', 'reporting forms are not available (0.996)', 'I am not motivated to report (0.997)' and 'Unavailability of professional environment to discuss about ADR (RII=0.939)'. In addition to these, a majority (141, 69.46%) were not confident about the classification of ADRs (RII=0.889) and were afraid of legal liabilities associated with reporting ADRs (RII=0.806). Moreover, a lack of knowledge about pharmacotherapy and the detection of ADRs was another major factor hindering their reporting (RII=0.731).
CONCLUSIONS: The Directorate of Drug Administration in Bangladesh needs to consider the results of this study to help it improve and simplify ADR reporting in Bangladeshi community pharmacy settings.
METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from inception until November 2018 for articles published in English examining the services offered by pharmacists in nursing homes. Studies were included if it examined the impact of interventions by pharmacists to improve the quality use of medicine in nursing homes.
RESULTS: Fifty-two studies (30 376 residents) were included in the current review. Thirteen studies were randomised controlled studies, while the remainder were either pre-post, retrospective or case-control studies where pharmacists provided services such as clinical medication review in collaboration with other healthcare professionals as well as staff education. Pooled analysis found that pharmacist-led services reduced the mean number of falls (-0.50; 95% confidence interval: -0.79 to -0.21) among residents in nursing homes. Mixed results were noted on the impact of pharmacists' services on mortality, hospitalisation and admission rates among residents. The potential financial savings of such services have not been formally evaluated by any studies thus far. The strength of evidence was moderate for the outcomes of mortality and number of fallers.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacists contribute substantially to patient care in nursing homes, ensuring quality use of medication, resulting in reduced fall rates. Further studies with rigorous design are needed to measure the impact of pharmacist services on the economic benefits and other patient health outcomes.