International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 1005–1009 | Cite as

Direct observation of telephone communication between community pharmacies and prescribers in New Zealand

  • Nastassja Trausch
  • James A. GreenEmail author
Short Research Report


Background Phone calls between pharmacists and prescribers play an important role in resolving potential errors and other issues. Despite their importance in patient care, and sometimes causing frustration for pharmacists, there is little research on these calls. Objective To quantify how long calls between pharmacists and prescribers are, how often phone calls occur, why calls are made, and who is called. Method An observational study was conducted with 130.5 h observed in 11 community pharmacies over 8 weeks in Dunedin, New Zealand, recording information about all incoming and outgoing calls. Data captured included information on length, date, time, reason for call, pharmacy staff involved, health professionals involved, and the place being called. We also surveyed pharmacists’ perceptions of this communication. Results Data on 95 phone calls was captured. The mean length was 110 s (95% CI 88–133), at an average of 0.7 calls per hour. The most frequent reasons for calling were clarifications and dose inquiries. Conclusion Calling prescribers is perceived as a frustrating; however the frequency of calls we observed was low, but some were long. The amount of time spent for pharmacist interventions may be reduced using alternative communication methods but these need further study.


Community pharmacy Interprofessional communication New Zealand Pharmacist intervention Prescriber Telephone call 



No funding was received for this study.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Supplementary material

11096_2018_687_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (49 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 50 kb)


  1. 1.
    Ranelli PL, Biss J. Physicians’ perceptions of communication with and responsibilities of pharmacists. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2000;40(5):625–30.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis L, Brunetti L, Lee E-K, Yoon N, Cho S-H, Suh D-C. Effects of computerized physician order entry on medication turnaround time and orders requiring pharmacist intervention. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2014;10(5):756–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kelly DV, Bishop L, Young S, Hawboldt J, Phillips L, Keough TM. Pharmacist and physician views on collaborative practice. Can Pharm J. 2013;146(4):218–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weissenborn M, Haefeli WE, Peters-Klimm F, Seidling HM. Interprofessional communication between community pharmacists and general practitioners: a qualitative study. Int J Clin Pharm. 2017;39(3):495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Green JA, Ross J, Stubbe M. Spoken and written interaction between community pharmacy staff and general practitioners [family physicians]. Int J Pharm Pract. 2016;24:14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lambert BL. Face and politeness in pharmacist–physician interaction. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(8):1189–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lambert BL. Directness and deference in pharmacy students’ messages to physicians. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40(4):545–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hasan S. A tool to teach communication skills to pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(3):67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peters G-JY. Diamond plots: a tutorial to introduce a visualisation tool that facilitates interpretation and comparison of multiple sample estimates while respecting their inaccuracy. Health Psychol Bull. 2017. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arroll N. Invisible clinicians: the role of the receptionist in general practice [Masters Thesis]. Auckland: University of Auckland; 2011.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mobasheri MH, King D, Johnston M, Gautama S, Purkayastha S, Darzi A. The ownership and clinical use of smartphones by doctors and nurses in the UK: a multicentre survey study. BMJ Innov. 2015;1(4):174–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bexci M, Subramani R. ICT communication between oncologists and oncology pharmacists in India: a pilot study. World J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2015;5(1):884–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PharmacyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations