Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Frequency, nature and determinants of pharmaceutical consultations provided in private by Dutch community pharmacists

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Pharmacy World & Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

According to a report published by the federation of Dutch patients’ associations, patients would like to see a pharmacist, who acts more as a personal adviser. This raised the question, how often Dutch community pharmacists have personal consultations with their patients in daily practice, on which factors this depends, and what kind of topics are discussed during these meetings.

Setting

Community pharmacies in the Netherlands

Method

A questionnaire was distributed among 800 randomly selected pharmacies. Questions were restricted to consultations characterized by one-to-one contact, drug therapy related content, and adequate privacy. These consultations were labelled as pharmaceutical consultations in private to distinguish them from other contacts between pharmacists and patients.

Main outcome measure

Number, content, and character of consultations.

Results

198 (24.8%) community pharmacies responded. The pharmacists provide an average of roughly 1.2 consultations in private per working day. The vast majority of respondents provided face-to-face and telephone consultations (94.4 and 91.9%, respectively), only a minority gave consultations by e-mail (30.8%). These consultations primarily dealt with topics related to medication safety. The mean overall time spent was 290 min per month. A relatively high frequency of personal consultations was significantly associated with the absolute number of full-time equivalent pharmacists in the pharmacy.

Conclusion

The frequency of pharmaceutical consultations in private is low, but may be improved by reorganisation of the pharmacist’s activities. The possibility of personal consultations by e-mail is not yet well-developed. Further research is needed to assess the patient’s view of pharmaceutical consultations in private.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. After our study had been performed, the coordinating federation of Dutch patients’ associations published a second study report about quality assessment of community pharmacies from the patient’s perspective. This report identified the fact that other patients may readily listen in when a conversation takes place at the counter as the most important issue that should be improved [18].

  2. Pharmacy assistants in The Netherlands receive an intermediate vocational training of 2–3 years to qualify. Assistant’s tasks that are more or less generally recognized are the compounding and dispensing of medicines, the provision of advice on OTC drugs and non-drug healthcare products, the provision of directions for use and the answering of basic questions about medicines and the underlying disease. More experienced assistants may discuss adherence or medication changes with the patient and perform one-to-one consultations [21].

References

  1. Straten GFM, Stüssgen RAJ. Patiëntenoordelen over apotheken. Een pilotproject in de regio Utrecht en Limburg. Utrecht: Nederlandse Patiënten Consumenten Federatie; 2000.

  2. Young MD. Research on the effects of pharmacist–patient communication in institutions and ambulatory care sites, 1969–1994. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1996;53:1277–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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;50:271–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. De Smet PAGM, Dautzenberg M. Repeat prescribing: scale, problems and quality management in ambulatory care patients. Drugs 2004;64:1779–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lowe CJ, Raynor DK, Purvis J, Farrin A, Hudson J. Effects of a medicine review and education programme for older people in general practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000;50:172–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bouvy ML, Heerdink ER, Urquhart J, Grobbee DE, Hoes AW, Leufkens HG. Effect of a pharmacist-led intervention on diuretic compliance in heart failure patients: a randomized controlled study. J Card Fail 2003;9:404–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Westerlund T, Allebeck P, Marklund B, Andersson IL, Branstad JO, Sjoblom M. Evaluation of a model for counseling patients with dyspepsia in Swedish community pharmacies. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2003;60:1336–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fleming GF, McElnay JC, Hughes CM. Development of a community pharmacy-based model to identify and treat OTC drug abuse/misuse: a pilot study. Pharm World Sci 2004;26:282–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cranor CW, Christensen DB. The Asheville Project: short-term outcomes of a community pharmacy diabetes care program. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2003;43:149–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cranor CW, Bunting BA, Christensen DB. The Asheville Project: long-term clinical and economic outcomes of a community pharmacy diabetes care program. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2003;43:173–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cranor CW, Christensen DB. The Asheville Project: factors associated with outcomes of a community pharmacy diabetes care program. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2003;43:160–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Odedina FT, Hepler CD, Segal R, Miller D. The Pharmacists’ Implementation of Pharmaceutical Care (PIPC) model. Pharm Res 1997;14:135–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cipolle RJ, Strand LM, Morley PC. Pharmaceutical care practice. The clinician’s guide. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson KA, Nye M, Hill-Besinque K, Cody M. Measuring of impact of patient counseling in the outpatient pharmacy setting: development and implementation of the counseling models for the Kaiser Permanente/USC Patient Consultation Study. Clin Ther 1995;17:988–1002.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Oh Y, McCombs JS, Cheng RA, Johnson KA. Pharmacist time requirements for counseling in an outpatient pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002;59:2346–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen J, Britten N. ’Strong medicine’: an analysis of pharmacist consultations in primary care. Fam Pract 2000;17:480–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bell HM, McElnay JC, Hughes CM, Woods A. Provision of pharmaceutical care by community pharmacists in Northern Ireland. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1998;55:2009–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schoen T. Apotheken door Cliënten Bekeken. Eindverslag van het project ’Apotheken door Cliënten Bekeken’ 2002–2004. Utrecht: Nederlandse Patiënten Consumenten Federatie (NPCF); (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Anonymous. ATC index with DDDs. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology; 2004

  20. Anonymous. Voorwaarden voor verantwoorde farmaceutische zorgverlening door openbare apotheken onderzocht. IGZ 03-37. Den Haag: Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg; 2003

  21. Van Mil J, De Jong-van den Berg LTW, Tromp TFJ. Rollen in farmaceutische patiëntenzorg. Taakverdeling tussen apotheker en assistenten. Pharm Weekbl 2000;135:951–3.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hargie OD, Morrow NC, Woodman C. Pharmacists’ evaluation of key communication skills in practice. Patient Educ Couns 2000;39:61–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Schommer JC, Wiederholt JB. A field investigation of participant and environment effects on pharmacist–patient communication in community pharmacies. Med Care 1995;33:567–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Possible conflict of interest

Peter De Smet works for the Scientific Institute Dutch Pharmacists, which is financially dependent on the Royal Dutch Society of Pharmacy (the professional pharmaceutical association in The Netherlands).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Apotheek Koning, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marcel J. Kooy

  2. Apotheek aan Zee, Noordwijk, The Netherlands

    Wouter S. Dessing

  3. LLOYDS Apotheek Molenwijk, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Esther F. Kroodsma

  4. Apotheek de Korenaer, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Steven R. J. G. Smits

  5. Science Shop Medicines, Faculty of Pharmacy, State University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Esther H. Fietje

  6. SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice Research, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Martine Kruijtbosch

  7. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Radboud University Nijmegen, Geert Grooteplein 8, Postbox 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Peter A. G. M. De Smet

Authors
  1. Marcel J. Kooy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wouter S. Dessing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esther F. Kroodsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steven R. J. G. Smits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Esther H. Fietje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martine Kruijtbosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peter A. G. M. De Smet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter A. G. M. De Smet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kooy, M.J., Dessing, W.S., Kroodsma, E.F. et al. Frequency, nature and determinants of pharmaceutical consultations provided in private by Dutch community pharmacists. Pharm World Sci 29, 81–89 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-006-9067-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-006-9067-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation