Comparing pharmacy practice in health facilities with and without pharmaceutically trained dispensers: a post intervention study in Tanzania

IF 3.3 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2024-04-02 DOI:10.1080/20523211.2024.2323091
R. Mbwasi, Kelvin Msovela, Fiona Chilunda, Sia Tesha, R. Canavan, K. Wiedenmayer
{"title":"Comparing pharmacy practice in health facilities with and without pharmaceutically trained dispensers: a post intervention study in Tanzania","authors":"R. Mbwasi, Kelvin Msovela, Fiona Chilunda, Sia Tesha, R. Canavan, K. Wiedenmayer","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2024.2323091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background: The critical shortage of comprehensively trained healthcare staff in Tanzania affects the capacity to deliver essential health services, attain universal health coverage and compromises health outcomes. There is a specific lack of suitably trained pharmaceutical professionals, thus, an increase in the use of unqualified or poorly trained staff. Following the introduction of a one-year pharmacy dispenser course intervention, this study explored the impact that the new cadre of graduates had on pharmacy practice compared to healthcare facilities with non-pharmacy trained dispensers (NPTDs). Methods: A post intervention assessment was conducted in 2021 using questionnaires formulated to measure indicators of Good Pharmacy Practice, comparing 29 public health facilities employing pharmacy-trained dispensers (PTD) with 32 public health facilities with NPTDs in Dodoma, Shinyanga and Morogoro regions of Tanzania. Data were collected by experienced pharmacists or pharmaceutical technicians and subsequently aggregated and statistically analysed. Results: The dispensing times for medicines were found to be the same for PTDs and the NPTDs (2 min). There were no statistically significant differences in the adequacy of labelling elements between PTDs and NPTDs. Patients’ level of knowledge of the medicines dispensed to them, from both PTDs and NPTDs, showed no difference. Moreover, no differences were observed in storage practice and documentation performance, records of dispensed medicines, handling of medicines and the dispensing area cleanliness between both groups. Overall, facilities with PTDs averaged a higher availability of tracer medicines (77%) than those with NPTDs (70%), however, availability of health commodities in all health facilities in the three regions was low and there was no statistically significant difference between both groups. Conclusion: The study showed no significant difference in performance of pharmacy practice between PTDs and NPTDs despite the former undertaking a one-year training course intended to improve knowledge and skills. Practice application not only depends on effective training but on the working environment. Clear job descriptions, appropriate tools and references to guide, Standard Operating Procedures, acceptance by management of the training undertaken to actively encourage recruits to apply these new skills could improve PTDs performance. Training and knowledge alone do not seem to lead to better practice and performance.","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2024.2323091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background: The critical shortage of comprehensively trained healthcare staff in Tanzania affects the capacity to deliver essential health services, attain universal health coverage and compromises health outcomes. There is a specific lack of suitably trained pharmaceutical professionals, thus, an increase in the use of unqualified or poorly trained staff. Following the introduction of a one-year pharmacy dispenser course intervention, this study explored the impact that the new cadre of graduates had on pharmacy practice compared to healthcare facilities with non-pharmacy trained dispensers (NPTDs). Methods: A post intervention assessment was conducted in 2021 using questionnaires formulated to measure indicators of Good Pharmacy Practice, comparing 29 public health facilities employing pharmacy-trained dispensers (PTD) with 32 public health facilities with NPTDs in Dodoma, Shinyanga and Morogoro regions of Tanzania. Data were collected by experienced pharmacists or pharmaceutical technicians and subsequently aggregated and statistically analysed. Results: The dispensing times for medicines were found to be the same for PTDs and the NPTDs (2 min). There were no statistically significant differences in the adequacy of labelling elements between PTDs and NPTDs. Patients’ level of knowledge of the medicines dispensed to them, from both PTDs and NPTDs, showed no difference. Moreover, no differences were observed in storage practice and documentation performance, records of dispensed medicines, handling of medicines and the dispensing area cleanliness between both groups. Overall, facilities with PTDs averaged a higher availability of tracer medicines (77%) than those with NPTDs (70%), however, availability of health commodities in all health facilities in the three regions was low and there was no statistically significant difference between both groups. Conclusion: The study showed no significant difference in performance of pharmacy practice between PTDs and NPTDs despite the former undertaking a one-year training course intended to improve knowledge and skills. Practice application not only depends on effective training but on the working environment. Clear job descriptions, appropriate tools and references to guide, Standard Operating Procedures, acceptance by management of the training undertaken to actively encourage recruits to apply these new skills could improve PTDs performance. Training and knowledge alone do not seem to lead to better practice and performance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较有和没有经过药学培训的配药员的医疗机构的药学实践:坦桑尼亚的一项干预后研究
摘要 背景:坦桑尼亚严重缺乏训练有素的医护人员,这影响了提供基本医疗服务、实现全民医保的能力,并损害了医疗成果。特别是缺乏经过适当培训的药剂专业人员,因此,使用不合格或训练不足的工作人员的情况有所增加。在引入为期一年的药房配药员课程干预措施后,本研究探讨了与使用未经药学培训的配药员(NPTDs)的医疗机构相比,新的毕业生队伍对药学实践的影响。方法:在 2021 年进行了一项干预后评估,使用了为衡量良好药学实践指标而制定的调查问卷,比较了坦桑尼亚多多马、欣扬加和莫罗戈罗地区 29 家聘用经过药学培训的配药员(PTD)的公共医疗机构与 32 家聘用未经药学培训的配药员(NPTD)的公共医疗机构。数据由经验丰富的药剂师或制药技术人员收集,然后进行汇总和统计分析。结果PTD 和 NPTD 的配药时间相同(2 分钟)。在标签内容的充分性方面,公共交通服务点和非公共交通服务点没有明显的统计学差异。患者对配发给他们的药品的了解程度,在公共药房和非处方药房均无差异。此外,两组在储存方法和文件记录、配药记录、药品处理和配药区清洁度方面也无差异。总体而言,与使用非处方药的医疗机构(70%)相比,使用处方药的医疗机构的示踪药品平均供应率较高(77%),但三个地区所有医疗机构的医疗用品供应率都较低,两组之间在统计上没有显著差异。结论研究表明,尽管 PTD 和 NPTD 接受了旨在提高知识和技能的为期一年的培训课程,但他们在药学实践方面的表现并无明显差异。实践应用不仅取决于有效的培训,还取决于工作环境。明确的工作描述、适当的指导工具和参考资料、标准操作程序、管理层对所接受培训的认可以及积极鼓励新聘人员应用这些新技能,都可以提高 PTD 的工作绩效。单靠培训和知识似乎并不能提高实践能力和工作绩效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Association of anxiolytic drugs with Torsade de Pointes: a pharmacovigilance study of the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. Factors influencing healthcare providers' behaviours in deprescribing: a cross-sectional study. Good manufacturing practice inspections conducted by Tanzania medicines and medical devices authority: a comparative study of two fiscal years from 2018 to 2020. Unused medicine take-back programmes: a systematic review. Community pharmacy & primary care integration: qualitative study on stakeholders' opinions and interventions.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1