Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 32–37 | Cite as

Simulated patients in the community pharmacy setting – Using simulated patients to measure practice in the community pharmacy setting

  • Margaret C. Watson
  • John R. Skelton
  • Christine M. Bond
  • Phil Croft
  • Connie M. Wiskin
  • Jeremy M. Grimshaw
  • Jill Mollison


Background: Performance measurement and quality of care in community pharmacy settings is problematic because of the lack of formal patient registration and the resultant risk of selection bias. Although simulated patients have been used for teaching and education purposes, particularly in medical settings, their use as a research tool requires exploration in other health settings. The purpose of this paper is to describe how we used simulated patients to measure professional performance of community pharmacy staff.

Method: Sixty pharmacies participated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of two guideline implementation strategies in the community pharmacy setting. The primary outcome measure for the study was derived from assessment forms completed by simulated patients following covert visits to participating pharmacies.

Results: Of the 420 simulated patient visits scheduled, 384 (91%) were completed. Nine visits were reported by pharmacy staff using reply-paid postcards, four of which concurred with known SP visits. Each detected visit was made by a different SP. In a post-intervention survey, 26 (52%) pharmacists stated they had been apprehensive about the use of simulated patients as part of the study, however, 41 (82%) pharmacists agreed that SP visits were an acceptable research method to use in a community pharmacy setting.

Discussion: Simulated patients are a feasible method of assessing professional performance in community pharmacy settings and overcome the methodological problems of other measurement methods. Further research is needed to assess the reliability and validity of simulated patients.

Community pharmacy services Evidence based practice Mystery shopping Patient simulation Pharmacy continuing education Pseudo customer Scotland 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Bibliography: Prescription only medicines reclassified to pharmacy only medicines. London: RPSGB, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mobey N, Wood A, Edwards C, Jepson MH. An assessment of the response to symptoms in community pharmacies. Pharmaceut J 1986; 237: 807.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anonymous. More “consumer” research. Pharmaceut J 1991; 251.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goodburn E, Mattosinho S, Mongi P, Waterston A. Management of childhood diarrhoea by pharmacists and parents: is Britain lagging behind the third world? BMJ 1991; 302: 440–3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anonymous. Counter advice. Consumers are still not receiving the right advice when buying medicines from pharmacists. WHICH 1999; 22–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scottish Department Executive. Report on the council meeting of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Pharmaceut J 1992; 248: 219.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sinclair HK, Bond CM, Lennox AS, Winfield AJ. The sale of nicotine replacement therapies from community pharmacies. Tobacco Control 1995; 4: 338–43.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Last JM. A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finn A, Kayande U. Unmasking a phantom: a psychometric assessment of mystery shopping. J Retailing 1999; 75: 195–217.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Watson MC, Bond CM, Grimshaw JM, Mollison J, Ludbrook A, Walker AE. Educational strategies to promote evidence-based community pharmacy practice: A cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). Fam Pract 2002; 19: 529–36.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Education group for guidelines on evaluation. Guidelines for evaluating papers on educational interventions. BMJ 1993; 318: 1265–7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rethans J, Saebu L. Do general practitioners act consistently in real practice when they meet the same patient twice? BMJ 1997; 314: 1170–3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saebu L, Rethans J. Management of patients with angina pectoris by GPs: a study with standardized (simulated) patients in actual practice. Fam Pract 1997; 14: 431–5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peabody J, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus T, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardised patients, & chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. J Am Med Assoc 2000; 283: 1740–2.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Madden J, Quick J, Ross-Degnan D, Kafle K. Undercover care-seekers: simulated clients in the study of health provider behaviour in developing countries. Soc Sci Med 1997; 10: 1465–82.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Degnan DR, Soumerai S, Goel P, Bates J, Makhulo J, Dondi et al. The impact of face-to-face educational outreach on diarrhoea treatment in pharmacies. Health Plan Policy 1996; 11: 308–18.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krska J, Greenwood R, Howitt E. Audit of advice provided in response to symptoms. Pharmaceut J 1994; 252: 93–6.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neto ACA, Benrimoj SI, Kavanagh DJ, Boakes, RA. Novel educational training program for community pharmacists. Am J Pharmaceut Educ 2000; 64: 302–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neto ACA, Kelly F, Benrimoj SI. Shaping practice behaviour: novel training methodology. Int J Pharm Pract 2001; 9: 203–10.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Norman GR, Neufeld VR, Walsh A, Woodward CA, McConver GA. Assuring physician's performances by using simulated patients. J Med Educ 1985; (60): 925–34.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hazelkorn H, Robins L. Actors Play patients: using surrogate patients to look into private practice. Public Health Rep 1996; 111: 129–32.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Silvestre A, Gehl M, Encandela J, Schelzel G. A participant observation study using actors at 30 publicly funded HIV counselling & testing sites in pennsylvania. Am J Public Health 2000; 90: 1096–9.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gallagher T, Lo B, Chesney M, Christensen K. How do physicians respond to patients' requests for costly, unindicated services. J Gen Intern Med 1997; 12: 663–38.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hutchinson B, Woodward C, Norman G, Abelson J, Brown J. Provision of preventive care to unannounced standardised patients. Can Med Assoc J 1998; 158: 185–93.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rubin Z. Designing honest experiments. Am Psychol 1973; 28: 445–8.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gallagher TH, Lo B, Chesney M, Christensen K. How do physicians respond to patients' requests for costly, unindicated services. J Gen Intern Med 1997; (12): 663–8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rubin Z. Designing Honest Experiments. Am Psychol 1973; (28): 445–8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beullens J, Rethans JJ, Goedhuys J, Buntinx F. The use of standardized patients in research in general practice. Fam Pract 1997; 14(1): 58–62.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yelland MJ. Standardized patients in the assessment of general practice consulting skills. Med Educ 1998; 32: 8–13.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morrison LJ, Colman AM, Preston CC. Mystery customer research: cognitive processes affecting accuracy. J Market Res Soc 1997; 39(2): 349–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret C. Watson
    • 1
  • John R. Skelton
    • 2
  • Christine M. Bond
    • 1
  • Phil Croft
    • 2
  • Connie M. Wiskin
    • 2
  • Jeremy M. Grimshaw
    • 3
  • Jill Mollison
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of General Practice and Primary CareUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Interactive Skills Unit, Department of Primary Care and General PracticeUniversity of BirminghamEdgbaston, BirminghamUK
  3. 3.Ottawa Health Research InstituteOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Department of Public HealthUniversity of Aberdeen, Medical School, ForesterhillAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations