Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 96–106 | Cite as

The structural and process aspects of pharmacy quality: older adults’ perceptions

  • Olayinka O. ShiyanbolaEmail author
  • David A. Mott
  • Kenneth D. Croes
Research Article

Abstract

Background Patients are increasingly playing an active role in healthcare and their definitions of healthcare quality are becoming more important to understand. The Donabedian model has been used to understand patients’ perceptions of quality in healthcare settings including hospitals and nursing homes; no research has applied the model to understand patients’ perceptions of pharmacy quality. Objective To describe older adults’ perception of a quality pharmacy including their expectations of a quality pharmacy and their preferences in a quality pharmacy. Setting Six focus groups held in community centers and senior residence facilities in Wisconsin. Methods The design was a descriptive, exploratory study. Participants were adults 65 years and older who filled a prescription at a community pharmacy in the 90 days prior to being contacted. Donabedian’s assessment of healthcare quality based on ‘structure,’ ‘process’ and ‘outcome’ was used to organize and categorize the focus group themes. Main outcome measure The focus groups explored older adults’ perceptions and expectations of a quality pharmacy. The factors that influenced their pharmacy choice were also examined. Results The older adults’ description of a quality pharmacy was based on the ‘structure’ and ‘process’ domain of the Donabedian model. However, most responses were focused on the ‘process’ domains and related to the application of patient-centered care (e.g., pharmacist interaction and communication) versus the structure domains (e.g., staff availability). The most frequently reported factor in the choice of pharmacies was the pharmacy’s location with some participants also reporting that their relationship and rapport with the pharmacist were also important. Older adults’ expectations were focused on the ‘process’ features of quality, including the provision of medication-related information, and the pharmacist facilitating medication safety and medication adherence. Conclusions In describing pharmacy quality, older adults mostly refer to the ‘process’ aspects of quality. Older adults perceive a quality pharmacy as one where the pharmacist provides patient-centered care. While location is important in pharmacy choices, the pharmacist’s patient-centeredness, and the quality features of the pharmacy are also relevant. Older adults’ expectations were related to their perception of a quality pharmacy. Pharmacists should publicize their pharmacies’ ‘process’ features in quality reporting systems.

Keywords

Community pharmacy Donabedian model Older adults Quality United States 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Community Academic Aging Research Network (CAARN) for helping with the recruitment of older adults into the study. The project described was supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, through the National Institute of Health (NIH) National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000427. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Funding

No specific funding was received to complete this study.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: a New Health System for the 21st Century. Vol. 6. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001. ISBN-13: 978-0309072809.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hibbard JH, Greene J, Daniel D. What is quality anyway? Performance reports that clearly communicate to consumers the meaning of quality of care. Med Care Res Rev. 2010;67:275–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McMillan SS, Sav A, Kelly F, King MA, Whitty JA, Wheeler AJ. How to attract them and keep then: the pharmacy attributes that matter to Australian residents with chronic conditions. Int J Pharm Pract. 2014;22:238–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nau DP, Kliethermes MA, McCabe S. Quality measurement: time to get serious. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2006;46:668–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farris KB, Kirking DM. Assessing the quality of pharmaceutical care. II. Application of concepts of quality assessment from medical care. Ann Pharmacother. 1993;27(2):215–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rademakers J, Delnoij D, de Boer D. Structure, process or outcome: which contributes most to patients’ overall assessment of healthcare quality? BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(4):326–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell SM, Roland MO, Buetow SA. Defining quality of care. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:1611–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Epstein RM, Street JR. The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):100–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arneson DL, Jacobs EW, Scott DM, Murray WJ. Patronage motives of community pharmacy patrons. J Pharm Mark Manag. 1989;4(2):3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whitehead P, Atkin P, Krass I, Benrimoj EI. Patient drug information and consumer choice of pharmacy. Int J Pharm Pract. 1999;7:71–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phul S, Cooper SL, Cantrill JA. Pharmacy services and patient choice: insights into differences between patient groups. Int J Pharm Pract. 2003;11:233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halsall D, Noyce P, Ashcroft D. Characterizing healthcare quality in the community. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2011;8(5):360–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shiyanbola OO, Mort JR. Patients’ perceived value of pharmacy quality measures: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006086. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006086.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Villako P, Raal A. A survey of Estonian consumer expectations from the pharmacy service and a comparison with the opinions of pharmacists. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29:546–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franic DM, Haddock SM, Tucker LT, Wooten N. Pharmacy patronage: identifying key factors in the decision making process using the determinant attribute approach. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2008;48:71–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oparah AC, Kikanme LC. Consumer satisfaction with community pharmacies in Warri, Nigeria. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2006;2(4):499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Piligrimiene Z, Buciuniene I. Different perspectives on health care quality: is the consensus possible? Inzinerine Ekon Eng Econ. 2008;1:104–10.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fact Sheet: Medicine use and older adults. [Internet] [cited 1 Feb 2015] http://www.mustforseniors.org/documents/must_factsheet.pdf.
  20. 20.
    Jepson M, Jesson J, Kendall H, Pocock R. Consumer expectations of community pharmaceutical services: a research report for the department of health. Aston University Pharmacy Practice Group Social and Consumer Research Unit, MEL Research, Aston Science Park, Birmingham, UK; 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miles M, Huberman M, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2014. ISBN-13: 978-1452257877.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage Publications; 2009. ISBN-13: 978-1446247372.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, King MA, Whitty JA, Wheeler AJ. Australian community pharmacy services: a survey of what people with chronic conditions and their carers use versus what they consider important. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(12). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006587.
  24. 24.
    McElnay JC, Nicholl AJ, Grainger-Rousseau TJ. The role of the community pharmacist—a survey of public opinion in Northern Ireland. Int J Pharm Pract. 1993;2:95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shannon GW, Cromley EK, Fink JL. Pharmacy patronage among the elderly: selected racial and geographical patterns. Soc Sci Med. 1985;20(1):85–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qato DM, Alexander GC, Conti RM, Johnson M, Schumm P, Lindau ST. Use of prescription and over-the-counter medications and dietary supplements among older adults in the United States. JAMA. 2008;300(24):2867–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morrow N, Hargie O, Woodman C. Consumer perceptions of and attitudes to the advice-giving role of community pharmacists. Pharm J. 1993;251:25–7.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Passmore PR, Kailis SG. Pharmacy practice consumer perspectives. Aust Pharm. 1990;9:178–84.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krass I. A comparison of clients’ experiences of counselling for prescription and over-the-counter medication in two types of pharmacies: validation of a research instrument. J Soc Adm Pharm. 1996;13:206–14.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shiyanbola OO, Mort JR, Lyons K. Advancing the utility of community pharmacy quality measures: a qualitative study. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2013;68:400–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Otani K. Enrollees’ global rating process of health care with the national CAHPS Benchmarking Database. Health Care Manag Rev. 2006;31:205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hibbard JH, Jewett JJ. Will quality report cards help consumers? Health Aff. 1997;16:218–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bensing JM. Doctor-patient communication and the quality of care. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:1301–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krupat E, Fancey M, Cleary PD. Information and its impact on satisfaction among surgical patients. Soc Sci Med. 2000;5:1817–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pharmacy Quality Alliance. PQA endorsed set of measures. [cited 2015 August 5] http://pqaalliance.org/measures/default.asp.pdf.
  36. 36.
    Warholak TL, Nau D. Quality and safety in pharmacy practice. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Medical; 2010. ISBN-13: 978-0071603850.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olayinka O. Shiyanbola
    • 1
    Email author
  • David A. Mott
    • 1
  • Kenneth D. Croes
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Social and Administrative Sciences, School of PharmacyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin Survey CenterUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations