Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Research article
  • Published:
Pharmacy World & Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47:533–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bell HM, McElnay JC, Hughes CM. A self-reported work sampling study in community pharmacy practice. Pharm World Sci. 1999;21:210–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Mobach M. The general pharmacy work explored in The Netherlands. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30:353–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rascati KL, Kimberlin CL, McCormick WC. Work measurement in pharmacy research. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1986;43(10):2445–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Roberts MJ, Kvalseth TO, Jermstad RL. Work measurement in hospital pharmacy. Top Hosp Pharm Manag. 1982;2:1–17.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Emmerton L, Jefferson K. Work sampling observation of community pharmacists: a review. Int J Pharm Pract. 1996;4:75–8.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nickman NA, Guerro R, Bair J. Self-reported work-sampling methods for evaluating pharmaceutical services. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47:1611–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hagerty BK, Chang RS, Spengler CD. Work sampling: analyzing nursing staff productivity. J Nurs Adm. 1985;15:9–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rutter R. Work sampling: as a win/win management tool. Ind Eng. 1994;26:30–1.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmel M. Hughes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCann, L., Hughes, C.M. & Adair, C.G. A self-reported work-sampling study in community pharmacy practice: a 2009 update. Pharm World Sci 32, 536–543 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-010-9405-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-010-9405-x

Keywords

Navigation