Have parents’ views on using community pharmacy services for children in the UK changed over the past ten years?

Abstract Background The expansion of community pharmacy services is one solution to relieve pressure on general practice in the United Kingdom (UK). There is a paucity of research of general practitioners’ (GPs’) perspectives of quality of care in the community pharmacy sector. The purpose of this study was to explore GPs’: Conceptualisation of quality for community pharmacy services, including the management of acute (low acuity) conditions and defining indispensable aspects of the patient experience (‘always events’) Opinions regarding whether and how to measure quality in the community pharmacy sector Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs in the UK. GPs were recruited using the snowballing technique and professional networks. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using an interpretive approach. Results Interviews were completed with 20 GPs from Scotland (n = 8) and England (n = 12). Multidimensional and inter-related concepts of quality were identified; most dimensions related to patient benefit, as well as impact on GP workload or other health service provision. Interviewees cautioned that “what counts can’t always be measured”. GPs’ expectations of quality often mirrored those of their own sector, but were ambivalent about the adoption of a quality outcome framework-type approach. Pharmacist involvement was expected to ensure quality in the management of ‘acute consultations’, however, GPs lacked awareness of community pharmacy personnel type, roles and training. Interviewees’ perceptions of quality varied by pharmacy type; independent pharmacies were sometimes associated with higher quality service delivery than larger chain organisations. Conclusions Quality frameworks for community pharmacy services could be partly informed by GP experience and expectations, but need to be contextual to reflect differences between both settings. The importance of person-centred care, consistency and continuity was emphasised together with the need for competent personnel and privacy of interactions.

Download Full-text

How does the public conceptualise the quality of care and its measurement in community pharmacies in the UK: a qualitative interview study

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027198 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. e027198 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Margaret C Watson ◽

Karin Silver ◽

Ross Watkins

Keyword(s):

Focus Groups ◽

Community Pharmacy ◽

Community Pharmacy Services ◽

Pharmacy Services ◽

The Public ◽

Quality Ratings ◽

Qualitative Interview Study ◽

Health And Social Care ◽

The Uk

ObjectivesThis study explored citizens’ perspectives about the quality of community pharmacy services in the UK and whether and how the quality of community pharmacy services should be measured.DesignSemistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted and were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed systematically using an interpretive approach.ParticipantsMembers of the public were approached via networks, such as Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, as well as community groups and personal networks.SettingScotland, England and Wales.ResultsData were collected from 20 participants: 11 interviews and 2 focus groups (in community settings, with five and four participants). Quality was conceptualised as multidimensional with inter-related overarching themes of person-centredness, professionalism and privacy. The importance of relational aspects with pharmacy personnel was emphasised including the need for a ‘friendly’ caring service, continuity of care, being known to personnel, including their awareness of individual’s health conditions: ‘it’s quite a personal service I would say…I think it means that they care about your welfare’. Participants discussed the importance of a professional approach to customer interactions including staff behaviour and appearance. Pharmacy design influenced perceptions of privacy, including having sufficient space or a separate consultation room to promote confidential consultations with a pharmacist. Participants suggested that quality assurance is needed to improve quality and to inspire confidence in the public ‘it would drive up quality standards overall’ but suggested that quality ratings were unlikely to influence their use of specific pharmacies. They emphasised the need for multidimensional quality ratings and for transparency with their derivation.ConclusionsThe public conceptualises quality of community pharmacy services as multidimensional and value relational aspects of care provided by personnel in this setting. While the development and application of quality indicators may drive improvement, it seems unlikely to influence the public’s use of individual pharmacies.

Download Full-text