Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 536–543 | Cite as

A self-reported work-sampling study in community pharmacy practice: a 2009 update

  • Laura McCann
  • Carmel M. HughesEmail author
  • Colin G. Adair
Research article

Abstract

Objective Using a self-reported work sampling methodology this study investigated how community pharmacists utilised their time, and quantified how much time pharmacists devoted to specific activities. Setting Community pharmacies (n = 30) in the Greater Belfast area. Method A classification system was developed to define all activities (professional, semi-professional, and non-professional tasks) which could potentially be performed by a community pharmacist in the course of a normal working day (from 9.00 to 6.00 pm). A random bleeper device was used which was programmed to bleep randomly approximately 13 times per day (over 12 days) at which time the pharmacist recorded their precise activity (using the classification system) at that time on a proforma. All completed data sheets for each pharmacy were entered into an Excel® spreadsheet, where the number of observations for each activity was expressed as a proportion of the total number of observations per day. Statistical analysis was carried out in SPSS, comparing these data to similar data which had been collected in 1998. Results Pharmacists in this study were found to spend approximately 49% of their time engaged in professional activities, 31% in semi-professional activities and 20% involved in non-professional activities which was similar to that reported in 1998. Most time was spent on assembly and labelling of products, whilst staff training occupied the least amount of pharmacists’ time. Pharmacists with a prescription volume of less than 1,499 per month spent significantly more time counselling patients on OTC medicines and responding to symptoms than those dispensing 1,500 items/month or more (P = 0.027). Pharmacists who employed a pre-registration student apportioned less time to the assembly and labelling of products compared to those without a student (P = 0.08). Pharmacists with three or more staff spent less time on coding and endorsing of prescriptions compared to those with less staff (P = 0.086). Conclusion Pharmacists in this study are spending more time checking prescriptions (essential component of pharmaceutical care) and are still managing to spend only 20% of their time on non-professional activities. However, there had been relatively little change in the way in which pharmacists in this sample spent their time compared to a previous study.

Keywords

Community pharmacy Community pharmacy contract Northern Ireland Pharmaceutical care Self-reporting Work sampling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all pharmacists who took part in the work sampling study.

Funding

This study was funded under a studentship provided to Laura McCann from the Northern Ireland Centre for Pharmacy Learning and Development (NICPLD).

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

References

  1. 1.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47:533–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bell HM, McElnay JC, Hughes CM. A self-reported work sampling study in community pharmacy practice. Pharm World Sci. 1999;21:210–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell H, McElnay J, Hughes C, Woods A. A qualitative investigation of the attitudes and opinions of community pharmacists to pharmaceutical care. J Soc Adm Pharm. 1998;15:284–95.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mobach M. The general pharmacy work explored in The Netherlands. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30:353–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rascati KL, Kimberlin CL, McCormick WC. Work measurement in pharmacy research. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1986;43(10):2445–52.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rutter PM, Brown D, Jones IF. Pharmacy research: the place of work measurement. Int J Pharm Pract. 1998;6:46–58.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roberts MJ, Kvalseth TO, Jermstad RL. Work measurement in hospital pharmacy. Top Hosp Pharm Manag. 1982;2:1–17.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher CM, Corrigan OI, Henman MC. A study of community pharmacy practice: pharmacists’ work patterns. J Soc Adm Pharm. 1999;8(1):15–24.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emmerton L, Jefferson K. Work sampling observation of community pharmacists: a review. Int J Pharm Pract. 1996;4:75–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Health Service Pharmacy Education and Development Committee Nationally recognised framework for final accuracy checking of dispensed items for pharmacy technicians. http://www.nicpld.org/courses/techAccred/assets/ACT_framework.pdf. Accessed 31 March 2010.
  11. 11.
    McCann L, Hughes C, Adair C. An exploration of work-related stress in Northern Ireland community pharmacy: a qualitative study. Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17:261–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Watson M, Blenkinsopp A. Pharmacy support staff need ongoing training if goals are to be realised. Pharm J. 2003;271:738.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Svarstad BL, Bultman DC, Mount JK. Patient counselling provided in community pharmacies: effects of state regulation, pharmacist age, and busyness. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2004;44(1):22–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ried LD, West TE, Martin P, Force W. Multidimensional work sampling to study the activities of decentralized clinical pharmacists. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1991;48:1211–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emmerton L, Becket G, Gillbanks L. The application of electronic work sampling technology in New Zealand community pharmacy. J Soc Adm Pharm. 1998;15(3):191–200.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ampt A, Westbrook J, Creswick N, Mallock N. A comparison of self-reported and observational work sampling techniques for measuring time in nursing tasks. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:18–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nickman NA, Guerro R, Bair J. Self-reported work-sampling methods for evaluating pharmaceutical services. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47:1611–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hagerty BK, Chang RS, Spengler CD. Work sampling: analyzing nursing staff productivity. J Nurs Adm. 1985;15:9–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rutter R. Work sampling: as a win/win management tool. Ind Eng. 1994;26:30–1.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Donnell K, McLean G, Grant S, McKelvie M, Mair F, Watt G, et al. The new GMS contract in primary care: the impact of governance and incentives. 2009. http://www.nhsconfed.org/documents/thenewGMScontractinprimarycare. Accessed 9 July 2009.
  21. 21.
    Bond C, Blenkinsopp A, Inch J, Celino G, Gray N. The effect of the new community pharmacy contract on the community pharmacy workforce. Pharmacy Practice Research Trust. http://www.pprt.org.uk/Documents/TrustNews/The_effect_of_the_new_community_pharmacy_contract_on_the_community_pharmacy_workforce.pdf. Accessed 31 March 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura McCann
    • 1
  • Carmel M. Hughes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Colin G. Adair
    • 2
  1. 1.School of PharmacyQueen’s University BelfastBelfastNorthern Ireland, UK
  2. 2.Northern Ireland Centre for Pharmacy Learning and DevelopmentQueen’s University BelfastBelfastNorthern Ireland, UK

Personalised recommendations