Avaliação da qualidade das farmácias comunitárias: uma revisão de escopo

Elias Matias Laurentino, Ana Cláudia de Brito Passos, Rochely Florenço de Castro Ferreira, Mirian Parente Monteiro, Paulo Sérgio Dourado Arrais
{"title":"Avaliação da qualidade das farmácias comunitárias: uma revisão de escopo","authors":"Elias Matias Laurentino, Ana Cláudia de Brito Passos, Rochely Florenço de Castro Ferreira, Mirian Parente Monteiro, Paulo Sérgio Dourado Arrais","doi":"10.22239/2317-269x.02266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Assessing quality in healthcare environments favors decision making with the lowest possible risk and the identification of strengths and weaknesses, leading to the structuring of reliable services. Objective: To synthesize current knowledge and existing literature on assessing the quality of community pharmacies (CF). Methods: This is a scoping review (SR) aligned with the methodology proposed by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, carried out in four databases, covering the period from 2012 to 2022. Basic qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics were used. Results: Of the 1,103 documents retrieved, 64 were selected. Quality assessment has been carried out, most of the time, from the patient’s perspective (54.7%), through quantitative studies (62.5%), cross-sectional (59.4%), and using questionnaires developed or adapted by the researchers themselves (51.6%). From the analysis, seven thematic categories and 36 subcategories were identified, highlighting, respectively, “pharmaceutical services” (81.25%) and “dispensing” processes (73.44%); “infrastructure and ambience” (70.3%) and “ambience and accessibility” (54.7%); “user experience and satisfaction” (67.2%) and “evaluation of community pharmacy services” (35.9%). It was observed that the categories of “people management”, “patient safety”, and “storage and disposal of medicines” were less evaluated and not all instruments used addressed all categories. Conclusions: This SR mapped scientific production regarding quality assessment in CF. This study shows the need to develop a standardized instrument encompassing the various evaluative aspects, which were listed based on the categories and subcategories identified in this review, in order to provide a complete overview of CF.","PeriodicalId":515818,"journal":{"name":"Vigilância Sanitária em Debate","volume":" 47","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vigilância Sanitária em Debate","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22239/2317-269x.02266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Assessing quality in healthcare environments favors decision making with the lowest possible risk and the identification of strengths and weaknesses, leading to the structuring of reliable services. Objective: To synthesize current knowledge and existing literature on assessing the quality of community pharmacies (CF). Methods: This is a scoping review (SR) aligned with the methodology proposed by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, carried out in four databases, covering the period from 2012 to 2022. Basic qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics were used. Results: Of the 1,103 documents retrieved, 64 were selected. Quality assessment has been carried out, most of the time, from the patient’s perspective (54.7%), through quantitative studies (62.5%), cross-sectional (59.4%), and using questionnaires developed or adapted by the researchers themselves (51.6%). From the analysis, seven thematic categories and 36 subcategories were identified, highlighting, respectively, “pharmaceutical services” (81.25%) and “dispensing” processes (73.44%); “infrastructure and ambience” (70.3%) and “ambience and accessibility” (54.7%); “user experience and satisfaction” (67.2%) and “evaluation of community pharmacy services” (35.9%). It was observed that the categories of “people management”, “patient safety”, and “storage and disposal of medicines” were less evaluated and not all instruments used addressed all categories. Conclusions: This SR mapped scientific production regarding quality assessment in CF. This study shows the need to develop a standardized instrument encompassing the various evaluative aspects, which were listed based on the categories and subcategories identified in this review, in order to provide a complete overview of CF.
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
社区药房质量评估:范围界定审查
导言:评估医疗保健环境的质量有利于在尽可能低的风险下做出决策,并找出优缺点,从而构建可靠的服务。目的综述有关社区药房(CF)质量评估的现有知识和文献。方法:这是一项范围综述(SR),符合《JBI 证据综述手册》提出的方法,在四个数据库中进行,时间跨度为 2012 年至 2022 年。采用了基本的定性内容分析和描述性统计方法。结果:在检索到的 1,103 篇文献中,有 64 篇被选中。大多数情况下,质量评估都是从患者的角度(54.7%)、通过定量研究(62.5%)、横断面研究(59.4%)以及使用研究人员自己编制或改编的问卷(51.6%)进行的。通过分析,确定了 7 个主题类别和 36 个子类别,分别突出了 "药品服务"(81.25%)和 "配药 "流程(73.44%);"基础设施和环境"(70.3%)和 "环境和可及性"(54.7%);"用户体验和满意度"(67.2%)和 "社区药房服务评价"(35.9%)。据观察,"人员管理"、"患者安全 "和 "药品的储存和处置 "类别的评估较少,而且并非所使用的所有工具都涉及所有类别。结论本研究绘制了有关 CF 质量评估的科学成果图。这项研究表明,有必要开发一种标准化工具,涵盖各种评估方面,这些方面是根据本综述中确定的类别和子类别列出的,以便提供一份完整的 CF 综述。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lesão pulmonar induzida pelo uso excessivo de cigarros eletrônicos: toxicantes envolvidos e mecanismos fisiopatológicos Avaliação da qualidade das farmácias comunitárias: uma revisão de escopo Perfil das prescrições de fitoterápicos anabolizantes comercializados por uma farmácia magistral no Rio de Janeiro Produção artesanal de alimentos lácteos em Goiás: análise de normativas e cenário do Selo Arte Análise do perfil de devoluções de quimioterapias endovenosas em um hospital filantrópico de Salvador-BA
×
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