4.2 Article

Simulated patient visits with immediate feedback to improve the supply of over-the-counter medicines: a feasibility study

Journal

FAMILY PRACTICE
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 532-542

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmp061

Keywords

Communication skills; feedback; non-prescription medicines; simulated patients

Funding

  1. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
  2. National Pharmacy Association

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods. This feasibility study used a randomized controlled trial design where participating pharmacies were randomized into two groups (SP or PE, feedback). SP visits were audiotaped and questionnaire data collected from participants post-intervention. Each pharmacy received three covert visits from SPs. Feedback was provided immediately after the first and second visits. Data were collected on information gathering and advice provision. The visits were assessed for minimum standards of practice and appropriateness of outcome. Results. Twenty-two pharmacists and 34 medicine counter assistants (MCAs) from 20 community pharmacies in Grampian, Scotland, participated. Sixty SP visits were completed (three per pharmacy) and were well received, particularly by the pharmacists. Similar results were shown across both study groups in terms of information gathering and information/advice provision during consultations. Few SP consultations achieved the minimum standard of practice although most resulted in an appropriate outcome. Conclusions. SP visits with feedback were acceptable to pharmacists as a method of improving the quality of consultations for OTC medicines, irrespective of the person giving feedback (SP or PE). The process by which pharmacists and their staff derived their recommendations, in terms of information gathering, could be improved. A large-scale study is needed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SP visits with feedback.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available