Community pharmacists’ routine provision of drug-related problem-reduction services

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to assess the degree of the provision of services for drug-related problems (DRPs) and the factors affecting provision within the community pharmacy setting in Irbid, a large city in Northern Jordan. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was developed and administered to community pharmacists in Irbid, Jordan during the period from January to May 2017. The survey is composed of background and practice characteristics, services provided routinely by the community pharmacists to address DRPs, and barriers and facilitators for DRP-reduction services. A summated score quantifying the degree of DRP-reduction service provision was calculated, which included overall scores and scores for the different scales and domains. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and a multivariate linear regression model for factors associated with the high provision of DRP-reduction service. RESULTS: Two hundred community pharmacists out of 210 pharmacists approached completed the surveys yielding a response rate of 95.2%. The most frequent DRPs encountered within the routine practice in the community pharmacy were economic aspects (76.0%). The mean total score relating to different DRP-reduction services was 32.9 (58.8%) out of 56 as the maximum possible score. It was estimated that 28.2% of the responding pharmacists provided the service overall (scored more than 50% of the scale). For the assessment, intervention, and referral dimensions, similar percentages of providers of the services were achieved: 59.7%, 61.9%, and 49.0%, respectively. Lower rates of providers were achieved on the documentation scale (12.9%). The lack of recognition of the pharmacist role by physicians was the most commonly reported barrier to effective DRP-reduction services among community pharmacists (78.9%). The ability to receive external guidance was indicated by the majority of surveyed pharmacists (94.5%) as a potential facilitator to DRP-reduction services in this study. Predictors associated with high total scores were the presence of medical records for the patients in the pharmacy, patients contact the pharmacy using email, a high satisfaction in professional relationships with physicians, and pharmacists’ age. CONCLUSION: Even though community pharmacists in this study have been shown to deliver certain activities to address DRPs to a high degree, the overall rate of DRPs services was suboptimal. Community pharmacists reported several barriers that should be taken into consideration to facilitate the role of community pharmacists in providing adequate DRP reduction services to patients.