Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 154–161 | Cite as

Patient oriented activities in Dutch community pharmacy: diffusion of innovations

  • Miranda C.M. PronkEmail author
  • Lyda Th.G. Blom
  • Albert Bakker
  • Kees J. de Blaey
  • Ruud Jonkers
  • Everett M. Rogers
Article

Abstract

Objectives: To explore the implementation of patient oriented activities, the perception of an innovation aimed at implementation of patient education and the preconditions for implementation of this innovation among Dutch pharmacists.Method: A survey, based on Rogers' theory of diffusion of innovations, was carried out among a random sample (n = 300) of Dutch managing pharmacists.Main outcome measures: Reported activities regarding patient education, medication surveillance and drug therapy meetings, as well as perception of the innovation and its perceived compatibility with pharmacy practice.Results: The response rate was 49.3%. Hundred (84.7%) respondents reported to provide extra written and verbal information with first prescription medication. Medication surveillance (100% check by computer, and check of the lists by the pharmacist) was reported by 43 (36.4%), and complete participation in drug therapy meetings was reported by 57 (48.3%) respondents. Observability (of results to others) of the new strategy was perceived as important by 90 (77.6%), compatibility (perceived consistency with existing values, past experiences and needs of potential adopters) by 87 (76.4%) and trialability (degree to which an innovation may be experimented with) by 81 (69.8%) respondents. Relative advantages (perception of the innovation as being better) and complexity (relatively difficult to understand and use) of the innovation were perceived as important by less respondents. The preconditions that were met by most pharmacists were 'financial resources' (n = 70; 59.8%), 'enough workspace' (n = 61; 53.1%) and 'enough time' (n = 58; 50%). Fifty-eight (49.2%) respondents intend to adopt the innovation, but this intention would be higher when more time and money and technicians are available, as well as less situations that are experienced as barriers (rush hours, lack of support, illness of employees).Conclusion: Based on the definitions used, we conclude that the implementation of medication surveillance and drug therapy meetings is relatively low compared to patient education. The development of an implementation tool is justified, but should deal with the experienced preconditions, barriers and needs of pharmacists. Combined, comprehensive pharmacy interventions promise to be a good way to change pharmacy practice.

Community pharmacy Diclofenac Health services research Mystery shoppers Patient counseling New Zealand Non prescription drug Non-steroidal antiinflammatory agent Vagina candidiasis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Van der Heide H, Tinke JL. Facts and figures 1999; Cost development of pharmaceutical aid. The Hague: Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics; 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cancrinus-Matthijsse A. Tussen hulpverlening en ondernemerschap. Beroepsuitoefening en taakopvattingen van openbare apothekers in een aantal West-Europese landen [Dissertation]. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers, 1995. ISBN 90-5170-393-7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Mil J, De Jong-van den Berg LTW, Tromp TFJ. Pharmaceutical care in the community pharmacy in the Netherlands. Pharmacy in the Netherlands, 1998 (special issue Pharm Weekbl 1998):36-9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990;47(3):533-43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tann J, Blenkinsopp A, Allen J, Platts A. Leading edge practitioners in community pharmacy: approaches to innovation. Int J Pharm Pract 1996;4(4):235-45.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hassell K, Noyce PR, Rogers A. Review of factors that influence the use of community pharmacies as a primary health care resource. Int J Pharm Pract 1999;7(1):51-9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bond C, Matheson C, Williams S, Williams P, Donnan P. Repeat prescribing: a role for community pharmacists in controlling and monitoring repeat prescriptions. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50(453):271-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reebye R, Avery AJ, Van den Bosch WJHM, Aslam M, Nijholt A, Van der Bij A. Exploring community pharmacists' perceptions of their professional relationships with physicians, in Canada and the Netherlands. Int J Pharm Pract 1999;7(3):149-58.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adu A, Simpson JM, Armour CL. Pharmacists' and physicians' perception of antibiotic policies in New South Wales public hospitals. Int J Pharm Pract 2001;9(1):31-6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Claesson S, Morrison A, Werheimer AI, Berger ML. Compliance with prescribed drugs: challenges for the elderly population. Pharm World Sci 1999;21(6):256-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Jong-Van den Berg L, Van der Zee AH, Schaafsma E, De smit D, Anderson C, Cornel MC. Counseling women about periconceptional use of folic acid: the role of the community pharmacist can be improved. Int J Pharm Pract 1999;7(3):138-42.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krska J, Duffus PRS. Pharmaceutical needs assessment in general practice. Int J Pharm Pract 2000;8(4):265-74.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones J, Matheson C, Bond C. Patient satisfaction with a community pharmacist-managed system of repeat prescribing. Int J Pharm Pract 2000;8(4):291-7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lipowsky E. Evaluating the outcomes of pharmaceutical care. J Am Pharm Ass 1996; NS36(12):726-34.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Narhi U, Airaksinen M, Enlund H. Do asthma patients receive sufficient information to monitor their disease-a nationwide survey in Finland. Pharm World Sci 2001;23(6):242-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson KA, Parker JP, McCombs JS, Cody M. The Kaiser Permanente/USC Patient Consultation Study: patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical services. University of Southern California. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1998;55(24):2621-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schommer JC, Wiederholt JB. A field investigation of participant and environment effects on pharmacist-patient communication in community pharmacies. Med Care 1995;33(6):567-84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schommer JC. Higher levels of consultation services increase patient satisfaction. Am Pharm 1995;NS35(8):33-9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Vries C. Collaboration in Healthcare: The tango to drug safety [Dissertation]. Groningen: C.S. de Vries;1998. ISBN 90-367-0978-4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paes A. Pharmacy and therapeutic committees in the Netherlands. In: Bakker A, Hekster YA, Leufkens HG (eds) Drug consumption in the Netherlands, Noordwijk: Amsterdam Medical Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pronk M, Blom L, Jonkers R, Bakker A. Community pharmacy and patient-oriented activities: the Dutch case. Patient Educ Couns 2002;46(1):39-45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paes AHP. Contacts between pharmacists and general practitioners in the Netherlands. J Soc Admin Pharm 1983;1:139-43.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blom ATG, Paes AHP, Bakker A, Koopman CJ, Van der Meer C. Pharmacist physician co-operation at a regional level. Pharm World Sci 1994;16(1):13-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Dijk L, Barnhoorn H, De Bakker D. Het Farmaco therapie overleg in 1999; stand van zaken en effecten op voorschrijven. Utrecht: Nivel, 2001. ISBN 90-6905-526-0.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blom A, Kam AL, Bakker A, Claesson C. Patient counselling in community pharmacy. A comparative study between Swedish and Dutch pharmacists. J Soc Adm Pharm 1993;10(2):53-62.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blom LThG. Developing patient education in community pharmacy [Dissertation]. Utrecht: L.Th.G. Blom; 1996. ISBN 90-393-1492-6.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Mil JWF. Pharmaceutical Care, the Future of Pharmacy. Theory, research and practice [Dissertation]. Groningen: J.W.F. van Mil; 2000. ISBN 90-9013367-4.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kerssens J. Andela MG, Friele RD. Apotheek scoort naar oordeel patient beter in bejegening dan in informatieverschaffing (Pharmacy is judged by patients to be better in treating patients than in providing information). Pharm Weekbl 1997;132(38):1432-9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Blom A, De Jong JGAM, Sierens J. Klantbejegening in de apotheek. Visie en ervaringen van klanten [Treating clients in the pharmacy. Vision and experiences of clients]. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, Faculteit Farmacie, 1995.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lelie-Van der Zande A. Resultaten van de Zelfzorgmonitor 1997/1998. Heeft u een goed middel voor de maag? [Results of the Selfcaremonitor 1997/1998. Do you have a good medicine for the stomach?]. Pharm Weekbl 1998;133(44): 1647-53.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pronk MCM, Blom AThG, Jonkers R, Van Burg A. The diffusion process of patient education in Dutch community pharmacy: an exploration. Patient Educ Couns 2001;42(2):115-21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0-02-926671-8.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bongenaar M. Door de bodem?! Een onderzoek naar kwaliteitsindicatoren voor farmaceutische zorg [Through the bottom?! A study into quality indicators for pharmaceutical care]. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2000.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    KNMP, Nederlandse Apotheeknorm. Den Haag: Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering van de Pharmacie, 1996.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Gier J. Clinical pharmacy in primary care and community pharmacy. Pharmacother 2000;20(10 pt 2):2785-815.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Doucette WR, Koch, YD. An exploratory study of community pharmacy practice change. J Am Pharm Assoc 2000;40(3):384-91.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Odedina FT, Hepler CD, Segal R, Miller D. The Pharmacists' Implementation of Pharmaceutical Care (PIPC) model. Pharm Res 1997;14(2):135-44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Farris K, Schopflocher DP. Between intention and behavior: an application of community pharmacists' assesment of pharmaceutical care. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:55-66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Holland RW, Nimmo CM. Transitions in pharmacy practice, part 3: effecting change-the three-ring circus. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56(21):2235-41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Holland RW, Nimmo CM. Transitions, part 1: beyond pharmaceutical care. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56(17):1758-64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Garside P. Organisational context for quality: lessons from the fields of organisational development and change management. Qual Health Care 1998;7 (suppl):S8-S15.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miranda C.M. Pronk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lyda Th.G. Blom
    • 1
  • Albert Bakker
    • 1
  • Kees J. de Blaey
    • 1
  • Ruud Jonkers
    • 2
  • Everett M. Rogers
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacotherapy, Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS)Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.ResConHaarlemThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Communication & JournalismUniversity of New MexicoUSA

Personalised recommendations