电子处方:大悉尼地区全科医生和药剂师的观点和接受程度。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Australian journal of primary health Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1071/PY22240
Phyllis Lau, Minh Thuan Tran, Ricky Yong Kim, Alsayed Hashem Alrefae, Sangwoo Ryu, Jim Chyuan Teh
{"title":"电子处方:大悉尼地区全科医生和药剂师的观点和接受程度。","authors":"Phyllis Lau, Minh Thuan Tran, Ricky Yong Kim, Alsayed Hashem Alrefae, Sangwoo Ryu, Jim Chyuan Teh","doi":"10.1071/PY22240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic prescription (e-prescription) was introduced in 2020 in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research aimed to explore general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists' experience with, and facilitators and barriers to, the use of e-prescription.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists in Greater Sydney to explore their experience with e-prescription. Thematic analysis used descriptive and mixed inductive and deductive approaches. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was used to further interpret and organise the themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven GPs and nine pharmacists were interviewed. Thirteen themes were elicited, seven of which were categorised as benefits (facilitators) and six were challenges (barriers). Four facilitator themes (convenience for healthcare providers (HCPs) and patients, addressing issues with paper prescriptions, contactless nature reducing access barriers during COVID-19 lockdown, and enabling patients to manage multiple prescriptions) were mapped to the TAM construct of 'perceived usefulness'; and one facilitator (an easier process) and two barrier themes (lack of information during implementation, and technological issues) were mapped to the TAM construct of 'perceived ease of use'. Themes that fell outside these constructs were separately categorised: four barrier themes (reluctance of some patients and HCPs to change, patient expectations of 'instant prescription' and lost opportunities for best-practice care, HCPs' perceptions of inadequate governmental governance, and ongoing costs) were 'other issues with e-prescription', and two facilitator themes (providing training on the use of e-prescription for HCPs and patients, and making e-prescription more streamlined) were 'suggestions to improve'.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are many facilitators and barriers to the use of e-prescription. Our findings may inform the future promotion of e-prescription post-COVID-19 pandemic. Further research should focus on consumers' perspectives of e-prescription.</p>","PeriodicalId":8651,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of primary health","volume":" ","pages":"NULL"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"E-prescription: views and acceptance of general practitioners and pharmacists in Greater Sydney.\",\"authors\":\"Phyllis Lau, Minh Thuan Tran, Ricky Yong Kim, Alsayed Hashem Alrefae, Sangwoo Ryu, Jim Chyuan Teh\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/PY22240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic prescription (e-prescription) was introduced in 2020 in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research aimed to explore general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists' experience with, and facilitators and barriers to, the use of e-prescription.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists in Greater Sydney to explore their experience with e-prescription. Thematic analysis used descriptive and mixed inductive and deductive approaches. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was used to further interpret and organise the themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven GPs and nine pharmacists were interviewed. Thirteen themes were elicited, seven of which were categorised as benefits (facilitators) and six were challenges (barriers). Four facilitator themes (convenience for healthcare providers (HCPs) and patients, addressing issues with paper prescriptions, contactless nature reducing access barriers during COVID-19 lockdown, and enabling patients to manage multiple prescriptions) were mapped to the TAM construct of 'perceived usefulness'; and one facilitator (an easier process) and two barrier themes (lack of information during implementation, and technological issues) were mapped to the TAM construct of 'perceived ease of use'. Themes that fell outside these constructs were separately categorised: four barrier themes (reluctance of some patients and HCPs to change, patient expectations of 'instant prescription' and lost opportunities for best-practice care, HCPs' perceptions of inadequate governmental governance, and ongoing costs) were 'other issues with e-prescription', and two facilitator themes (providing training on the use of e-prescription for HCPs and patients, and making e-prescription more streamlined) were 'suggestions to improve'.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are many facilitators and barriers to the use of e-prescription. Our findings may inform the future promotion of e-prescription post-COVID-19 pandemic. Further research should focus on consumers' perspectives of e-prescription.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian journal of primary health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"NULL\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian journal of primary health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/PY22240\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian journal of primary health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/PY22240","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:澳大利亚于 2020 年 COVID-19 大流行期间引入了电子处方(电子处方)。本研究旨在探讨全科医生(GPs)和社区药剂师使用电子处方的经验、促进因素和障碍:这项定性研究对大悉尼地区的全科医生和药剂师进行了半结构化访谈,以探讨他们使用电子处方的经验。主题分析采用了描述性方法以及归纳和演绎混合方法。技术接受模型(TAM)被用来进一步解释和组织主题:结果:对 11 名全科医生和 9 名药剂师进行了访谈。共引出 13 个主题,其中 7 个归类为好处(促进因素),6 个归类为挑战(障碍)。四个促进主题(方便医疗服务提供者(HCP)和患者、解决纸质处方问题、非接触式性质减少了 COVID-19 封闭期间的访问障碍,以及使患者能够管理多种处方)被映射到 "感知有用性 "的 TAM 结构;一个促进主题(过程更简单)和两个障碍主题(实施过程中缺乏信息和技术问题)被映射到 "感知易用性 "的 TAM 结构。不属于这些结构的主题被单独归类:四个障碍主题(部分患者和高级保健医生不愿改变、患者期望 "即时处方 "和失去最佳实践护理的机会、高级保健医生认为政府管理不足和持续成本)属于 "电子处方的其他问题",两个促进主题(为高级保健医生和患者提供使用电子处方的培训和使电子处方更加简化)属于 "改进建议":结论:电子处方的使用存在许多促进因素和障碍。我们的研究结果可为未来在 COVID-19 大流行后推广电子处方提供参考。进一步的研究应关注消费者对电子处方的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
E-prescription: views and acceptance of general practitioners and pharmacists in Greater Sydney.

Background: Electronic prescription (e-prescription) was introduced in 2020 in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research aimed to explore general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists' experience with, and facilitators and barriers to, the use of e-prescription.

Methods: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists in Greater Sydney to explore their experience with e-prescription. Thematic analysis used descriptive and mixed inductive and deductive approaches. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was used to further interpret and organise the themes.

Results: Eleven GPs and nine pharmacists were interviewed. Thirteen themes were elicited, seven of which were categorised as benefits (facilitators) and six were challenges (barriers). Four facilitator themes (convenience for healthcare providers (HCPs) and patients, addressing issues with paper prescriptions, contactless nature reducing access barriers during COVID-19 lockdown, and enabling patients to manage multiple prescriptions) were mapped to the TAM construct of 'perceived usefulness'; and one facilitator (an easier process) and two barrier themes (lack of information during implementation, and technological issues) were mapped to the TAM construct of 'perceived ease of use'. Themes that fell outside these constructs were separately categorised: four barrier themes (reluctance of some patients and HCPs to change, patient expectations of 'instant prescription' and lost opportunities for best-practice care, HCPs' perceptions of inadequate governmental governance, and ongoing costs) were 'other issues with e-prescription', and two facilitator themes (providing training on the use of e-prescription for HCPs and patients, and making e-prescription more streamlined) were 'suggestions to improve'.

Conclusion: There are many facilitators and barriers to the use of e-prescription. Our findings may inform the future promotion of e-prescription post-COVID-19 pandemic. Further research should focus on consumers' perspectives of e-prescription.

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
Australian journal of primary health
Australian journal of primary health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
136
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Journal of Primary Health integrates the theory and practise of community health services and primary health care. The journal publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed research, reviews, policy reports and analyses from around the world. Articles cover a range of issues influencing community health services and primary health care, particularly comprehensive primary health care research, evidence-based practice (excluding discipline-specific clinical interventions) and primary health care policy issues. Australian Journal of Primary Health is an important international resource for all individuals and organisations involved in the planning, provision or practise of primary health care. Australian Journal of Primary Health is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of La Trobe University.
期刊最新文献
Australian healthcare professionals’ beliefs and practice behaviours in management of chronic pelvic pain: a cross-sectional survey General practice registrars’ practice in outer metropolitan Australia: a cross-sectional comparison with rural and inner metropolitan areas Hepatitis C elimination: amplifying the role of primary care nurses in Australia Abstracts of the Australasian Association for Academic Primary Care (AAAPC) Annual Research Conference Older patients want to talk about sexual health in Australian primary care
×
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