Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 81–89 | Cite as

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

  • Marcel J. Kooy
  • Wouter S. Dessing
  • Esther F. Kroodsma
  • Steven R. J. G. Smits
  • Esther H. Fietje
  • Martine Kruijtbosch
  • Peter A. G. M. De SmetEmail author
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Outpatients Pharmaceutical care Consultations Evaluation study Pharmacists Pharmaceutical services Community pharmacy services The Netherlands 

Notes

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).

References

  1. 1.
    Straten GFM, Stüssgen RAJ. Patiëntenoordelen over apotheken. Een pilotproject in de regio Utrecht en Limburg. Utrecht: Nederlandse Patiënten Consumenten Federatie; 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Smet PAGM, Dautzenberg M. Repeat prescribing: scale, problems and quality management in ambulatory care patients. Drugs 2004;64:1779–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Odedina FT, Hepler CD, Segal R, Miller D. The Pharmacists’ Implementation of Pharmaceutical Care (PIPC) model. Pharm Res 1997;14:135–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen J, Britten N. ’Strong medicine’: an analysis of pharmacist consultations in primary care. Fam Pract 2000;17:480–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 19.
    Anonymous. ATC index with DDDs. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology; 2004Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anonymous. Voorwaarden voor verantwoorde farmaceutische zorgverlening door openbare apotheken onderzocht. IGZ 03-37. Den Haag: Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg; 2003Google Scholar
  21. 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. 22.
    Hargie OD, Morrow NC, Woodman C. Pharmacists’ evaluation of key communication skills in practice. Patient Educ Couns 2000;39:61–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel J. Kooy
    • 1
  • Wouter S. Dessing
    • 2
  • Esther F. Kroodsma
    • 3
  • Steven R. J. G. Smits
    • 4
  • Esther H. Fietje
    • 5
  • Martine Kruijtbosch
    • 6
  • Peter A. G. M. De Smet
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.Apotheek KoningAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Apotheek aan ZeeNoordwijkThe Netherlands
  3. 3.LLOYDS Apotheek MolenwijkAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Apotheek de KorenaerThe HagueThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Science Shop Medicines, Faculty of PharmacyState University UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice ResearchLeidenThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Department of Clinical PharmacyUniversity Medical Centre Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations