Centre for Pharmacy Workforce Studies, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Feb 8;20(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-0912-0.
This study aimed to use marketing theory to examine the views of patients, pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs) on how community pharmacies are currently used and to identify how community pharmacy services may be better integrated within the primary care pathway for people with long-term conditions (LTCs).
A qualitative research design was used. Two focus groups were conducted with respiratory patients (n = 6, 5) and two with type 2 diabetes patients (both n = 5). Two focus groups were held with pharmacists (n = 7, 5) and two with GPs (both n = 5). The "7Ps marketing mix" ("product", "price", "place", "promotion", "people", "process", "physical evidence") was used to frame data collection and analysis. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.
Due to the access and convenience of community pharmacies ("place"), all stakeholder groups recommended using community pharmacies over GP practices for services such as management of minor ailments, medication reviews and routine check-ups for well managed LTCs ("product"). All stakeholder groups preferred pharmacy services with clear specifications which focused on specific interventions to reduce variability in service delivery and quality ("process"). However, all stressed the importance of having an appropriate system to share relevant information, allowing pharmacists and GPs two-way flow ("process"). Pharmacists and GPs mentioned difficulties in collaborating with each other due to inter-professional tensions arising from funding conflicts, which leads to duplication of services and inefficient workflow within the primary care pathway ("people"). Patients and GPs were sometimes doubtful of community pharmacies' potential to expand services due to limited space, size and poor quality consultation rooms ("physical evidence"). However, all stakeholder groups recommended promoting community pharmacy services locally and nationally ("promotion"). Patients felt the most effective form of promotion was first-hand experience of high quality pharmacy services and peer word-of-mouth. The added value of using pharmacy services was faster access and convenience for patients, and freeing up GPs' time to focus on more complex patients ("value").
Using the 7Ps marketing mix highlighted factors which could influence utilisation and integration of community pharmacy services within the primary care pathway for patients with LTCs. Further research is needed to identify their relative importance.
本研究旨在运用营销理论，考察患者、药剂师和全科医生（GP）对社区药房当前使用情况的看法，并确定如何更好地将社区药房服务整合到慢性病（LTC）患者的初级保健路径中。
采用定性研究设计。对 6 名（n=5）呼吸患者和 5 名（n=5）2 型糖尿病患者进行了两次焦点小组讨论。对 7 名（n=5）药剂师和 5 名（n=5）GP 进行了两次焦点小组讨论。采用“7Ps 营销组合”（“产品”、“价格”、“地点”、“促销”、“人”、“流程”、“有形证据”）来构建数据收集和分析。使用主题分析对数据进行分析。
由于社区药房的可及性和便利性（“地点”），所有利益相关者群体都建议在管理小病、药物审查和对管理良好的慢性病进行常规检查等服务方面，使用社区药房而非 GP 诊所（“产品”）。所有利益相关者群体都更倾向于具有明确规范的药房服务，重点是减少服务提供和质量差异的具体干预措施（“流程”）。然而，所有人都强调需要有一个适当的系统来共享相关信息，允许药剂师和 GP 之间进行双向流动（“流程”）。药剂师和 GP 提到，由于资金冲突引起的专业紧张关系，他们在相互合作方面存在困难，这导致初级保健路径中的服务重复和工作流程效率低下（“人”）。由于空间有限、规模较小以及咨询室质量较差，患者和 GP 有时对社区药房扩大服务范围的潜力表示怀疑（“有形证据”）。然而，所有利益相关者群体都建议在地方和国家层面推广社区药房服务（“促销”）。患者认为最有效的推广形式是亲身经历高质量的药房服务和同行口碑。使用药房服务的附加值是为患者提供更快的就诊和便利，以及为 GP 腾出时间专注于更复杂的患者（“价值”）。
使用 7Ps 营销组合突出了可能影响慢性病患者社区药房服务在初级保健路径中利用和整合的因素。需要进一步研究以确定它们的相对重要性。
