 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Health Researcher CEFAR, Associação Nacional das Farmácias ANF, R. Marechal Saldanha, 1; 1249-069 Lisbon, Portugal fax 351 213400674 filipa.costa{at}anf.pt
Pharmacy Practice Consultant van Mil Consultancy/Quality Institute for Pharmaceutical Care Zuidlaren, Netherlands
Director Academic Department of Pharmacy Barts and The London NHS Trust London, United Kingdom
Medical Doctor, Imunoaerologist British Hospital Lisboa, Portugal
Professor of Pharmacology Laboratório de Farmacologia da Faculdade de Farmácia da Universidade de Coimbra Coimbra, Portugal
Published Online, October 26, 2004. www.theannals.com, DOI 10.1345/aph.1E059
Methods
The study was based in 5 community pharmacies during February and March 2002. Patients using the pharmacy who were prescribed asthma medication were invited to participate in the study. Patients agreed to participate following receipt of a leaflet explaining the study and signed a consent form. The pharmacists' interventions in managing these patients were documented using various data collection forms. These included a questionnaire to predict respiratory conditions in adults (IUALTD)1; a form to document patient data, the drugs prescribed, and drug-related problem (DRP) classification2; the Mini-Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire3; a checklist to assess patients' inhaler techniques4; a questionnaire to assess the patients' knowledge of their drugs and condition5; and a patient information leaflet developed by the research team. Before the study, pharmacists attended a training session to familiarize themselves with the documentation. The pharmacists' opinions of the use and utility of the documentation were evaluated using a 5-point scale. Descriptive and inferential statistics (SPSS for Windows, release 10) were used to analyze the collected data.
Results
The participating pharmacists developed opinions about the documentation tools after using them over the 2-month study period on 24 patients. Every tool was considered generally useful (Table 1). However, the DRP classification was useful but not very simple to use and generated considerable workload. The lowest scores were obtained for the diagnostic tool and the knowledge and quality of life questionnaire (x– = 3.0), both of which are often used in research studies and therefore may need to be reviewed if research is to be fully implemented in practice. While the inhaler technique checklist was considered useful and simple, it created extra workload. Three of the piloted tools were regarded as able to be incorporated in daily practice. Pharmacists ranked the patient information leaflets highest (4.9), considering them to be very useful and simple while generating no extra workload. The use of peak flow meters was also ranked very positively (4.3), viewed as very useful and quite simple to use, even though they generated some extra workload. The patient profile forms were ranked quite positively (3.9); they were useful and simple, while creating some workload.
|
The limitations of this study include the small sample and the convenience sampling process used. The study may not be widely generalizable; however, it is important to report on such feasibility studies to help with understanding how best to target such implementation strategies. It seems that most of the methods of documentation are considered usable in daily practice and could be made part of the documentation processes being implemented in professional activities in Portugal.
Footnotes
Funding for the study was provided by Faculdade de Farmácia da Universidade de Lisboa and Associação Nacional das Farmácias; GlaxoSmithKline provided the IUALTD and the peak flow meters. We thank patients and pharmacists who actively participated in the study.
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
