Kashyap Krishneeta C, Nissen Lisa M, Smith Simon S, Kyle Greg
School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Int J Pharm Pract. 2014 Apr;22(2):125-34. doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12052. Epub 2013 Aug 15.
To evaluate the current management of over-the-counter (OTC) insomnia complaints in Australian community pharmacies using standardized patient methodology.
Trained standardized patients visited a sample of 100 randomly selected South East Queensland community pharmacies in June 2011. The standardized patients enacted two OTC insomnia scenarios: a direct product request (DPR) (n = 50) and a symptom-based request (SBR) (n = 50). Results of the interactions were documented immediately after each visit and evaluated using the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia's WHAT STOP GO protocol as a standard comparison.
Of all DPRs, 30% were handled entirely by the pharmacist, 70% of staff enquired about specific symptoms and 28% investigated the cause of insomnia. No staff investigated the frequency of product use. The DPR scenario resulted in a 92% supply of the requested doxylamine product (Restavit). In the SBR scenario, 18% of requests were handled entirely by the pharmacist, 58% of staff enquired about specific symptoms and 44% investigated the cause of insomnia. Staff recommended medicated products (38%), or herbal (78%) or non-drug techniques (18%). Investigation into smoking and alcohol intake was not undertaken in DPR or SBR interactions, while questioning on caffeine intake was undertaken in 2 and 14% of cases respectively. There were no significant differences found in the handling of sleep requests by pharmacists compared to pharmacy assistants.
The standardized patient methodology was a successful way to assess the community pharmacy counselling provided with OTC sleep requests and suboptimal staff responses were found when compared with recommended practice standards.
采用标准化患者方法评估澳大利亚社区药房对非处方(OTC)失眠投诉的当前管理情况。
2011年6月,经过培训的标准化患者走访了昆士兰州东南部随机选取的100家社区药房。标准化患者模拟了两种非处方失眠场景:直接药品请求(DPR)(n = 50)和基于症状的请求(SBR)(n = 50)。每次走访后立即记录互动结果,并使用澳大利亚药学会的“什么该做什么不该做”协议作为标准对照进行评估。
在所有直接药品请求中,30%完全由药剂师处理,70%的工作人员询问了具体症状,28%调查了失眠原因。没有工作人员调查产品使用频率。直接药品请求场景导致所请求的多西拉敏产品(雷司他韦)的供应率为92%。在基于症状的请求场景中,18%的请求完全由药剂师处理,58%的工作人员询问了具体症状,44%调查了失眠原因。工作人员推荐了药物产品(38%)、草药产品(78%)或非药物技术(18%)。在直接药品请求或基于症状的请求互动中均未对吸烟和饮酒情况进行调查,而分别在2%和14%的案例中询问了咖啡因摄入情况。与药房助理相比,药剂师在处理睡眠请求方面未发现显著差异。
标准化患者方法是评估社区药房对非处方睡眠请求提供的咨询服务的一种成功方式,与推荐的实践标准相比,发现工作人员的反应存在不足。