SA Pharmacy, SA Health, PO Box 287 Rundle Mall, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia; UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, Level 6, HB Building, City West Campus, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, Level 6, HB Building, City West Campus, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022 Oct;18(10):3775-3781. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.05.001. Epub 2022 May 4.
Integrating research with clinical practice is essential for evidence-based practice and continuous improvement in health care. Little is known about the research capacity and culture of the Australian hospital pharmacy workforce, particularly in rural areas and for pharmacy assistants/technicians.
This paper aims to characterise the research capacity and culture of a state-wide public-hospital pharmacy service at organisation, team and individual levels, and to explore variables which influence research confidence and success.
An online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey using the validated Research Capacity in Context tool was emailed to all pharmacists, pharmacy assistants/technicians and non-clinical staff employed by a statewide pharmacy service in South Australia. Respondent characteristics and organisation, team and individual scores of research skill/success were summarised using descriptive statistics. T-tests compared results for pharmacists and pharmacy assistants/technicians and metropolitan-based and non-metropolitan-based staff. Regression analyses explored predictors of pharmacists individual research skill/success scores.
A response rate of 43.4% (n = 278/641, 19 sites) was obtained. Respondents were primarily pharmacists (68%) and pharmacy assistants/technicians (28%); 91% were practicing in a metropolitan setting. 47% reported no research experience. Highest scores for research skill/success were observed at the organisational level (mean score 6.0/10) vs. team (mean score 5.6/10) and individual levels (mean score 5.1/10). Within each level specific items that scored poorly were identified. Individual research skills/success scores were higher in pharmacists vs. pharmacy assistants/technicians (mean score 5.2/10 vs. 4.2/10, p < 0.01), and were not different between staff in metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan settings (mean scores 5.2 vs. 5.0, p = 0.77). For pharmacists, undertaking undergraduate or internship research projects or postgraduate research training were associated with higher individual scores of research skills and success.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This research extends understanding of hospital pharmacy research capacity and culture, describes research skills and success in hospital pharmacy technicians/assistants for the first time and highlights low-scoring areas; these could be targeted to improve research capacity and culture at an individual, team and organisational levels.
将研究与临床实践相结合对于循证实践和医疗保健的持续改进至关重要。对于澳大利亚医院药剂师劳动力的研究能力和文化,特别是在农村地区和药剂师助理/技术员方面,知之甚少。
本文旨在从组织、团队和个人层面描述全州公立医院药房服务的研究能力和文化,并探讨影响研究信心和成功的变量。
使用经过验证的“研究能力背景”工具,对南澳大利亚州全州药房服务的所有药剂师、药剂师助理/技术员和非临床人员进行了在线、匿名、横断面调查。使用描述性统计方法总结了受访者特征以及研究技能/成功的组织、团队和个人得分。t 检验比较了药剂师和药剂师助理/技术员以及大都市和非大都市基础员工的结果。回归分析探讨了影响药剂师个人研究技能/成功得分的预测因素。
获得了 43.4%(n=278/641,19 个站点)的回复率。受访者主要是药剂师(68%)和药剂师助理/技术员(28%);91%在大都市环境中工作。47%的人没有研究经验。研究技能/成功的最高得分是在组织层面(平均得分 6.0/10),而不是团队层面(平均得分 5.6/10)和个人层面(平均得分 5.1/10)。在每个层面上,都确定了得分较低的具体项目。与药剂师助理/技术员(平均得分 5.2/10 与 4.2/10,p<0.01)相比,药剂师的个人研究技能/成功得分更高,并且在大都市和非大都市环境中的员工之间没有差异(平均得分 5.2 与 5.0,p=0.77)。对于药剂师来说,从事本科或实习研究项目或研究生研究培训与更高的个人研究技能和成功得分相关。
讨论/结论:本研究扩展了对医院药剂师研究能力和文化的理解,首次描述了医院药剂师助理/技术员的研究技能和成功,并强调了得分较低的领域;这些领域可以针对个人、团队和组织层面来提高研究能力和文化。