Trial reportQuality & safety in health care2006
Using human error theory to explore the supply of non-prescription medicines from community pharmacies.
Trial report in Quality & safety in health care, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unveiling pedagogical effects of blended multimedia and slide-based approaches on students' self-efficacy and performance in over-the-counter medication counseling: an explanatory mixed methods study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- A qualitative non-participant observational study of non-prescription counseling in community pharmacies.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
- Protocols versus practice: unravelling clinical checking variations in community pharmacies in England-a multi-method study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Theoretically derived interventions aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in primary care: A systematic review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Review
- Using theories and frameworks to understand how to reduce low-value healthcare: a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Article
- A Theory Based Intervention to Enhance Information Exchange during Over-The-Counter Consultations in Community Pharmacy: A Feasibility Study.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Development of a Theory-Based Intervention to Enhance Information Exchange during Over-The-Counter Consultations in Community Pharmacy.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Understanding procedural violations using Safety-I and Safety-II: The case of community pharmacies.Safety science · 2018Article
- When procedures meet practice in community pharmacies: qualitative insights from pharmacists and pharmacy support staff.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Quality of assessment and counselling offered by community pharmacists and medication sale without prescription to patients presenting with acute cardiac symptoms: a simulated client study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- Exploring the supply of non-prescription medicines from community pharmacies in Scotland.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2008Article
- Training Pharmacy Students in Self-Medication Counseling Using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination-Based Approach.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe importance of theory in underpinning interventions to promote effective professional practice is gaining recognition. The Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions has assisted in promoting awareness and adoption of theory into study design. Human error theory has previously been used by high risk industries but its relevance to healthcare settings and patient safety requires further investigation. This study used this theory as a framework to explore non-prescription medicine supply from community pharmacies. The relevance to other healthcare settings and behaviours is discussed.
methodA 25% random sample was made of 364 observed consultations for non-prescription medicines. Each of the 91 consultations was assessed by two groups: a consensus group (stage 1) to identify common problems with the consultation process, and an expert group (stages 2 and 3) to apply human error theory to these consultations. Paired assessors (most of whom were pharmacists) categorised the perceived problems occurring in each consultation (stage 1). During stage 2 paired assessors from an expert group (comprising patient safety experts, community pharmacists and psychologists) considered whether each consultation was compliant with professional guidelines for the supply of pharmacy medicines. Each non-compliant consultation identified during stage 2 was then categorised as a slip/lapse, mistake, or violation using human error theory (stage 3).
resultsDuring stage 1 most consultations (n = 75, 83%) were deemed deficient in information exchange. At stage 2, paired assessors varied in attributing non-compliance to specific error types. Where agreement was achieved, the error type most often selected was "violation" (n = 27, 51.9%, stage 3). Consultations involving product requests were less likely to be guideline compliant than symptom presentations (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.95, p = 0.05).
conclusionsThe large proportion of consultations classified as violations suggests that either pharmacy staff are unaware of professional guidelines and thus do not follow them (therefore these acts would not be violations), or that they knowingly violate the guidelines due to reasons that need further research. The methods presented here could be used in other healthcare settings to explore healthcare professional behaviour and to develop strategies to promote patient safety and effective professional practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.