|
SKILL MIX IN COMMUNITY PHARMACY: OBSERVING THE IMPACT OF REPEAT DISPENSING
Elvey R, Ashcroft DM, Morecroft C, Noyce P.
Centre for Innovation in Practice at the Workforce Academy, School of
Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester,
Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL rebecca.elvey@manchester.ac.uk
Background
Schemes designed to improve the process of managing repeat medicines
are frequently used in general practice and community pharmacy. Previous
evaluations have provided useful data on such schemes, however, there
has been little empirical evidence available about the impact on skill
mix in community pharmacy. Repeat Dispensing (RD) was piloted at 89 pathfinder
sites around England and is now an essential service in the new community
pharmacy contractual framework. The aim of this study was to investigate
the impact of this new service on community pharmacy, and to determine
the extent and nature of support staff involvement in dispensing activities.
Methods
A non-participant observational study was carried out in a purposive
sample of 13 community pharmacies around England. A researcher observed
and documented the activities of pharmacy staff when processing prescriptions
and tracked the dispensing pathway for both RD and 'normal' prescriptions
serving as a control. Data were analysed using STATA 8 software. Simple
descriptive statistics were used to describe the number of prescriptions
observed, and regression analysis was used to examine differences between
the staff groups engaged in each stage of the dispensing process. The
analysis controlled for clustering of prescriptions at different sites,
acknowledging the different systems in operation amongst different pharmacies.
A p-value of p<0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.
Results
2043 dispensing episodes were observed in total, involving 842 (41%)
RD and 1201 (59%) normal prescriptions. Support staff were involved in
all stages of the dispensing process for both groups. Overall, pharmacists
undertook the majority of dispensing tasks and there were few significant
differences between groups of staff undertaking dispensing activities
between RD and normal dispensing. Overall, however, pharmacists delegated
proportionately fewer RD than normal dispensing tasks. Where support staff
were involved, the majority of tasks were undertaken by those with NVQ
level 2 or medicines counter assistant qualifications.
Significant differences in the types of tasks performed were identified
between some staff groups at the beginning (receiving or retrieving prescriptions)
and end (handing out medication) stages of the dispensing process. Pharmacy
technicians with an NVQ level 3 qualification were over five times more
likely to receive or retrieve RD prescriptions than normal prescriptions
(p<0.002). Medicines counter assistants were four times more likely
to hand out medication dispensed from a RD prescription than a normal
prescription (p<0.001). In contrast, pharmacists were significantly
more likely to hand out medication dispensed from normal prescriptions
than from RD prescriptions (p<0.001).
Discussion
This study provides an example of how re-organisation of a routine
pharmaceutical task, i.e. dispensing, impacts on the skill mix involved,
and the patient interface in community pharmacy. The new Health Bill makes
provision for changes to working practices, including the delegation of
certain dispensing activities to support staff. Evidence from the RD scheme
is therefore pertinent both to a more thorough understanding of current
dispensing practices and also in providing baseline data against which
future developments may be measured, whether through RD or other community
pharmacy initiatives.
Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge Andrew Adams for his
assistance with the data collection for this study
References
1 Morecroft C, Ashcroft D, Noyce P. Repeat dispensing
of prescriptions in community pharmacies: a systematic review of the UK
literature. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2006; in press
1 Anon. Health Bill will enable personal supervision changes. The Pharmaceutical
Journal 2005; 275:563
Presented at the HSRPP Conference 2006, Bath
|