Protocols versus practice: unravelling clinical checking variations in community pharmacies in England-a multi-method study.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s11096-024-01743-9
Ali Elgebli, Jason Hall, Denham L Phipps
{"title":"Protocols versus practice: unravelling clinical checking variations in community pharmacies in England-a multi-method study.","authors":"Ali Elgebli, Jason Hall, Denham L Phipps","doi":"10.1007/s11096-024-01743-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Standardisation, a widely accepted concept for risk management, entails designing and implementing task-specific operating procedures. In community pharmacies, Standardised Operating Procedures (SOPs) are a mandatory requirement and are recognised as essential for upholding safety and quality.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to investigate community pharmacists' (CPs) compliance with SOPs when checking prescriptions, and the reasons for variations between standardised protocols and practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Eight sets of SOPs underwent hierarchical task analysis (HTA) to generate a normative description of clinical checking execution as per protocols. Subsequently, twelve CPs were engaged in a simulated clinical checking exercise, verbalising their thoughts while checking virtual prescriptions. Transcribed data underwent content analysis, aligned with a descriptive model to uncover engagement patterns, and disparities between SOPs and CPs' practices. Finally, a focus group discussion took place to contextualise the observed variations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>HTA aided in constructing a clinical checking model with six primary subtasks and 28 lower subtasks. CPs often omitted subtasks during checks, diverging from prescribed protocols. These deviations, observed in controlled environment, reveal an ingrained aspect within the professional culture of pharmacists, where there may be a tendency not to strictly adhere to protocols, despite variations in work conditions. Contributing factors to this culture include the exercise of professional judgment, reliance on others, and prioritisation of patient preferences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights ongoing deviations from SOPs during clinical prescription checks in community pharmacies, suggesting a cultural tendency. Future research should delve into risk management strategies for these deviations and address the delicate balance between flexibility and stringent compliance.</p>","PeriodicalId":13828,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11399187/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01743-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Standardisation, a widely accepted concept for risk management, entails designing and implementing task-specific operating procedures. In community pharmacies, Standardised Operating Procedures (SOPs) are a mandatory requirement and are recognised as essential for upholding safety and quality.

Aim: This study aimed to investigate community pharmacists' (CPs) compliance with SOPs when checking prescriptions, and the reasons for variations between standardised protocols and practice.

Method: Eight sets of SOPs underwent hierarchical task analysis (HTA) to generate a normative description of clinical checking execution as per protocols. Subsequently, twelve CPs were engaged in a simulated clinical checking exercise, verbalising their thoughts while checking virtual prescriptions. Transcribed data underwent content analysis, aligned with a descriptive model to uncover engagement patterns, and disparities between SOPs and CPs' practices. Finally, a focus group discussion took place to contextualise the observed variations.

Results: HTA aided in constructing a clinical checking model with six primary subtasks and 28 lower subtasks. CPs often omitted subtasks during checks, diverging from prescribed protocols. These deviations, observed in controlled environment, reveal an ingrained aspect within the professional culture of pharmacists, where there may be a tendency not to strictly adhere to protocols, despite variations in work conditions. Contributing factors to this culture include the exercise of professional judgment, reliance on others, and prioritisation of patient preferences.

Conclusion: This study highlights ongoing deviations from SOPs during clinical prescription checks in community pharmacies, suggesting a cultural tendency. Future research should delve into risk management strategies for these deviations and address the delicate balance between flexibility and stringent compliance.

Abstract Image

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
协议与实践:揭示英格兰社区药房临床检查的差异--一项多方法研究。
背景:标准化是一个被广泛接受的风险管理概念,它要求设计和实施针对特定任务的操作程序。目的:本研究旨在调查社区药剂师(CPs)在检查处方时对 SOP 的遵守情况,以及标准化方案与实践之间存在差异的原因:方法:对八套 SOP 进行了分层任务分析 (HTA),以生成按规范执行临床核对的规范描述。随后,12 名临床医师参与了模拟临床核对练习,在核对虚拟处方时说出了自己的想法。对转录的数据进行了内容分析,并与描述性模型相结合,以揭示参与模式以及标准操作规程与临床医师实践之间的差异。最后,还进行了焦点小组讨论,对观察到的差异进行了背景分析:HTA 协助构建了一个临床检查模型,其中包括 6 个主要子任务和 28 个次要子任务。医护人员在检查过程中经常遗漏子任务,偏离规定的方案。在受控环境中观察到的这些偏差揭示了药剂师职业文化中根深蒂固的一个方面,即尽管工作条件不同,但可能存在不严格遵守规程的倾向。造成这种文化的因素包括行使专业判断力、依赖他人以及优先考虑病人的喜好:本研究强调了社区药房在临床处方检查过程中不断偏离 SOP 的情况,表明了一种文化倾向。未来的研究应深入探讨这些偏差的风险管理策略,并解决灵活性与严格合规性之间的微妙平衡问题。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
131
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (IJCP) offers a platform for articles on research in Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Care and related practice-oriented subjects in the pharmaceutical sciences. IJCP is a bi-monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research data, new ideas and discussions on pharmacotherapy and outcome research, clinical pharmacy, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, the clinical use of medicines, medical devices and laboratory tests, information on medicines and medical devices information, pharmacy services research, medication management, other clinical aspects of pharmacy. IJCP publishes original Research articles, Review articles , Short research reports, Commentaries, book reviews, and Letters to the Editor. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy is affiliated with the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP). ESCP promotes practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy, especially in Europe. The general aim of the society is to advance education, practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy . Until 2010 the journal was called Pharmacy World & Science.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the impact of baseline platelet count on linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia: a retrospective single-center observation study. Sentiment analysis in medication adherence: using ruled-based and artificial intelligence-driven algorithms to understand patient medication experiences. Translation and validation of the CLEO tool in Vietnamese to assess the significance of pharmacist interventions. Association of polypharmacy with clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in older adults with cardiometabolic diseases: a retrospective cohort study. Correction: Development and validation of a Medication Adherence Universal Questionnaire: the MAUQ.
×
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