Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27266770›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

When procedures meet practice in community pharmacies: qualitative insights from pharmacists and pharmacy support staff.

Christian E L Thomas, Denham L Phipps, Darren M Ashcroft

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christian E L ThomasNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Manchester Pharmacy School, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6536-4591
Denham L PhippsNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Manchester Pharmacy School, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0857-2890
Darren M AshcroftNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Manchester Pharmacy School, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Department of Health GMPSTRC-2012-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOur aim was to explore how members of community pharmacy staff perceive and experience the role of procedures within the workplace in community pharmacies.

settingCommunity pharmacies in England and Wales.

participants24 community pharmacy staff including pharmacists and pharmacy support staff were interviewed regarding their view of procedures in community pharmacy. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

results3 main themes were identified. According to the 'dissemination and creation of standard operating procedures' theme, community pharmacy staff were required to follow a large amount of procedures as part of their work. At times, complying with all procedures was not possible. According to the 'complying with procedures' theme, there are several factors that influenced compliance with procedures, including work demands, the high workload and the social norm within the pharmacy. Lack of staff, pressure to hit targets and poor communication also affected how able staff felt to follow procedures. The third theme 'procedural compliance versus using professional judgement' highlighted tensions between the standardisation of practice and the professional autonomy of pharmacists. Pharmacists feared being unsupported by their employer for working outside of procedures, even when acting for patient benefit. Some support staff believed that strictly following procedures would keep patients and themselves safe. Dispensers described following the guidance of the pharmacist which sometimes meant working outside of procedures, but occasionally felt unable to voice concerns about not working to rule.

conclusionsOrganisational resilience in community pharmacy was apparent and findings from this study should help to inform policymakers and practitioners regarding factors likely to influence the implementation of procedures in community pharmacy settings. Future research should focus on exploring community pharmacy employees' intentions and attitudes towards rule-breaking behaviour and the impact this may have on patient safety.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPatient SafetyCommunity Pharmacy ServicesEnglandGuideline AdherenceHumansInterviews as TopicPharmacistsQualitative ResearchResilience, PsychologicalWalesWorkloadCommunity PharmacyPatient SafetyProceduresProfessional AutonomyResilience

Identifiers

PMID27266770
PMCPMC4908895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.