社区药剂师对检查处方的态度:横断面调查。

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
W Ellen van Loon, Maarten Lambert, Mette Heringa, Marcel L Bouvy, Katja Taxis
{"title":"社区药剂师对检查处方的态度:横断面调查。","authors":"W Ellen van Loon, Maarten Lambert, Mette Heringa, Marcel L Bouvy, Katja Taxis","doi":"10.1093/ijpp/riae030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The final prescription check is a mandatory but time-consuming process in Dutch community pharmacies. A safer dispensing process may have made the final prescription check obsolete.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe the final prescription check in Dutch community pharmacies and explore pharmacists' attitudes towards changing this.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey among Dutch community pharmacists. The online questionnaire was based on literature and previous qualitative research, piloted in three pharmacies, and took 10 min to complete. Results were analysed descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 409 pharmacists participated. They saw the final prescription check as an important quality assurance of the dispensing process. Nevertheless, most pharmacists agreed that the final prescription check could be optimized as they thought that the time invested outweighed the benefits. Automation of the dispensing process, only checking selected high-risk prescriptions, and more in-process checks could reduce the need for an extensive final prescription check, rather than delegating the task to assistants. To implement changes, most pharmacists felt current dispensing guidelines needed to be adapted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a widespread consensus that optimizing the final prescription check could enhance efficiency and allow more time for person-centred care. Most pharmacists expressed a preference for updated guidelines before implementing such changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community pharmacists' attitudes towards checking prescriptions: a cross-sectional survey.\",\"authors\":\"W Ellen van Loon, Maarten Lambert, Mette Heringa, Marcel L Bouvy, Katja Taxis\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ijpp/riae030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The final prescription check is a mandatory but time-consuming process in Dutch community pharmacies. A safer dispensing process may have made the final prescription check obsolete.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe the final prescription check in Dutch community pharmacies and explore pharmacists' attitudes towards changing this.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey among Dutch community pharmacists. The online questionnaire was based on literature and previous qualitative research, piloted in three pharmacies, and took 10 min to complete. Results were analysed descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 409 pharmacists participated. They saw the final prescription check as an important quality assurance of the dispensing process. Nevertheless, most pharmacists agreed that the final prescription check could be optimized as they thought that the time invested outweighed the benefits. Automation of the dispensing process, only checking selected high-risk prescriptions, and more in-process checks could reduce the need for an extensive final prescription check, rather than delegating the task to assistants. To implement changes, most pharmacists felt current dispensing guidelines needed to be adapted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a widespread consensus that optimizing the final prescription check could enhance efficiency and allow more time for person-centred care. Most pharmacists expressed a preference for updated guidelines before implementing such changes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riae030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riae030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在荷兰的社区药房中,最后处方检查是一个强制性但耗时的过程。更安全的配药流程可能会使最后处方检查变得过时:描述荷兰社区药房的最终处方检查,并探讨药剂师对改变这一做法的态度:对荷兰社区药剂师进行横断面调查。在线问卷以文献和先前的定性研究为基础,在三家药房进行试点,完成问卷需要 10 分钟。对调查结果进行了描述性分析:共有 409 名药剂师参与了问卷调查。他们认为最终处方检查是配药过程中重要的质量保证。尽管如此,大多数药剂师都认为可以优化最终处方检查,因为他们认为所投入的时间得不偿失。配药流程自动化、只检查选定的高风险处方以及更多的流程中检查可以减少对大量最终处方检查的需求,而不是将这项任务委托给助理。为了实施变革,大多数药剂师认为需要调整现行的配药指南:大家普遍认为,优化最终处方检查可以提高效率,并留出更多时间进行以人为本的护理。大多数药剂师表示,在实施此类改革之前,最好先更新指导原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Community pharmacists' attitudes towards checking prescriptions: a cross-sectional survey.

Background: The final prescription check is a mandatory but time-consuming process in Dutch community pharmacies. A safer dispensing process may have made the final prescription check obsolete.

Objective: To describe the final prescription check in Dutch community pharmacies and explore pharmacists' attitudes towards changing this.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey among Dutch community pharmacists. The online questionnaire was based on literature and previous qualitative research, piloted in three pharmacies, and took 10 min to complete. Results were analysed descriptively.

Results: A total of 409 pharmacists participated. They saw the final prescription check as an important quality assurance of the dispensing process. Nevertheless, most pharmacists agreed that the final prescription check could be optimized as they thought that the time invested outweighed the benefits. Automation of the dispensing process, only checking selected high-risk prescriptions, and more in-process checks could reduce the need for an extensive final prescription check, rather than delegating the task to assistants. To implement changes, most pharmacists felt current dispensing guidelines needed to be adapted.

Conclusion: There was a widespread consensus that optimizing the final prescription check could enhance efficiency and allow more time for person-centred care. Most pharmacists expressed a preference for updated guidelines before implementing such changes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP) is a Medline-indexed, peer reviewed, international journal. It is one of the leading journals publishing health services research in the context of pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, medicines and medicines management. Regular sections in the journal include, editorials, literature reviews, original research, personal opinion and short communications. Topics covered include: medicines utilisation, medicine management, medicines distribution, supply and administration, pharmaceutical services, professional and patient/lay perspectives, public health (including, e.g. health promotion, needs assessment, health protection) evidence based practice, pharmacy education. Methods include both evaluative and exploratory work including, randomised controlled trials, surveys, epidemiological approaches, case studies, observational studies, and qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. Application of methods drawn from other disciplines e.g. psychology, health economics, morbidity are especially welcome as are developments of new methodologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信