Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 353–361 | Cite as

Use of simulated patients to assess the clinical and communication skills of community pharmacists

  • Marjorie C. Weiss
  • Anneka Booth
  • Bethan Jones
  • Sarah Ramjeet
  • Eva Wong
Research Article

Abstract

Objective To investigate the quality and appropriateness of Emergency Hormonal Contraception (EHC) supply from community pharmacies. Setting Community pharmacies in the southwest of England during 2007. Method Two simulated patient (‘mystery shopper’) scenarios to each participating pharmacy, one where the supply of EHC would be appropriate (scenario 1) and one where there was a drug interaction between EHC and St John’s Wort, and the supply inappropriate (scenario 2). Pharmacy consultations were rated using criteria developed from two focus groups: one with pharmacist academics and one with female university students. Feedback to pharmacists to inform their continuing professional development was provided. Main outcome measure Scores on rating scales encompassing the clinical and communication skills of the participating community pharmacists completed immediately after each mystery shopper visit. Results 40 pharmacist visits were completed: 21 for scenario 1 and 19 for scenario 2. Eighteen pharmacists were visited twice. Five pharmacists visited for scenario 2 supplied EHC against professional guidance, although other reference sources conflicted with this advice. Pharmacies which were part of the local PGD scheme scored higher overall in scenario 1 (P = 0.005) than those not part of the scheme. Overall the communication skills of pharmacists were rated highly although some pharmacists used jargon when explaining the interaction for scenario 2. Conclusion Formatively assessing communication skills in an integrative manner alongside clinical skills has been identified as an important part of the medical consultation skills training and can be incorporated into the routine assessment and feedback of pharmacy over-the-counter medicines advice.

Keywords

Assessment of practice Communication skills Community pharmacy Emergency hormonal contraception Simulated patients United Kingdom 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Mr. Solomon Lai to the conduct and analysis of this research. The authors would also like to thank all the community pharmacists, university staff and university students who participated in this research.

Funding

This project was funded by a small grant from the University of Bath.

Conflicts of interest statement

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Office for National Statistics. Omnibus survey report no. 37—contraception and sexual health 2007/8. London: The Stationery Office; 2008. ISBN: 978 1 85774 677 8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Social Exclusion Unit (CM4342). Teenage pregnancy. London: The Stationery Office; 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayer Healthcare. Levonelle product website. http://www.levonelle.co.uk/scripts/pages/Page1.php. Accessed 17 Dec 2009.
  4. 4.
    Marston C, Meltzer H, Majeed A. Impact on contraceptive practice of making emergency hormonal contraception available over the counter in Great Britain: repeated cross sectional surveys. Br Med J. 2005;331:271–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Practice guidance on the supply of emergency hormonal contraception as a pharmacy medicine. http://www.rpsgb.org.uk/pdfs/ehcguid.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2009.
  6. 6.
    The Pharmaceutical Journal and the Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education. PJ practice checklist: OTC emergency contraception. http://www.pharmj.com/pdf/checklist/EHC.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2009.
  7. 7.
    Department of Health. Implementing the new community pharmacy contractual framework—information for primary care trusts. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4109256. Accessed 17 Dec 2009.
  8. 8.
    Ferner RE, Beard K. Over-the-counter medicines: proceed with caution. Br Med J. 2008;336:694–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anon. A test of your own medicine. Which? October 2008, pp. 12–4.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anon. Can your pharmacist cope? Which? February 2004, pp. 10–3.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anon. Diet drug mis-sold. Which? August 2009, p. 4.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Watson MC, Norris P, Granas AG. A systematic review of the use of simulated patients and pharmacy practice research. Int J Pharm Pract. 2006;14:83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jesson J. Mystery shopping demystified: is it a justifiable research method? Pharm J. 2004;272:615–7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Norris P. Reasons why mystery shopping is a useful and justifiable research method. Pharm J. 2004;272:746–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shing MNK, Spence LJ. Investigating the limits of competitive intelligence gathering: is mystery shopping ethical? Bus Ethics Eur Rev. 2002;11:343–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neto A. Changing pharmacy practice: the Australian experience. Pharm J. 2003;270:235–6.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weiss MC, Locke R, Graham A. Users’ views of new providers of emergency contraception: a qualitative study. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2007;8:112–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    French AC, Kaunitz AM. Pharmacy access to emergency hormonal contraception in Jacksonville, FL: a secret shopper survey. Contraception. 2007;75:126–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen MM, Dunn S, Cockerill R, Brown TER. Using a secret shopper to evaluate pharmacist provision of emergency contraception. Can Pharm J. 2004;137:28–33.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson C, Bissell P. Using semi-covert research to evaluate an emergency hormonal contraception service. Pharm World Sci. 2004;26:102–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baxter K., editor. Stockley’s drug interactions. 7th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2006. ISBN: 978 0 85369 624 1.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary, 54. London: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and RPS Publishing; 2007. ISBN: 978 085369 736 7.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alte D, Weitschies W, Ritter CA. Evaluation of consultation in community pharmacies with mystery shoppers. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41:1023–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Benrimoj SI, Werner JB, Raffaele C, Roberts AS. A system for monitoring quality standards in the provision of non-prescription medicines from Australian community pharmacies. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30:147–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Benrimoj SI, Werner JB, Raffaele C, Roberts AS, Costa FA. Monitorign quality standards in the provision of non-prescription medicines from Australian community pharmacies: results of a national programme. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16:354–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kurtz S, Silverman J, Benson J, Draper J. Marrying content and process in clinical method teaching: enhancing the Calgary-Cambridge Guides. Acad Med. 2003;78:802–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stone M. What patients want from their doctors. Br Med J. 2003;326:1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marjorie C. Weiss
    • 1
  • Anneka Booth
    • 2
  • Bethan Jones
    • 3
  • Sarah Ramjeet
    • 4
  • Eva Wong
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy & PharmacologyUniversity of BathBathUK
  2. 2.Princess Alexandra HospitalHarlowUK
  3. 3.Pearns Pharmacies LtdCardiffUK
  4. 4.Barts and The London NHS TrustLondonUK
  5. 5.Yeovil District HospitalYeovil, SomersetUK

Personalised recommendations