IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v31y1990i5p603-607.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community pharmacy: A method of assessing quality of care

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, Felicity J.
  • Salkind, M. R.
  • Jolly, Brian C.

Abstract

Generalisability theory is presented as a research method for assessing the quality of health advice. The theory is applied to make a comprehensive assessment of primary health care advice given by community pharmacists. A random sample of pharmacies from all London postal districts were selected and visited for set periods throughout one year. During these visits all consultations on health or the use of drugs between pharmacists and clients were tape-recorded. Nine characteristics were derived by an external criterion panel on which the quality of advice in a random sample of consultations (50) was assessed using rating scales. Following the application of generalisability theory, operational conditions for the assessment were selected to obtain a generalisability coefficient of around 0.8. Nearly half the consultations achieved satisfactory scores on at least three-quarters of the criteria on which they were assessed. However almost a third were considered satisfactory on less than a quarter of the criteria, most of these being satisfactory on none of them. Performance regarding disease prevention/health promotion activity was poorest. Thus the quality of most consultations was found to be either very good or very poor, relatively few occupying the middle ground.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, Felicity J. & Salkind, M. R. & Jolly, Brian C., 1990. "Community pharmacy: A method of assessing quality of care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 603-607, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:31:y:1990:i:5:p:603-607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(90)90096-B
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:31:y:1990:i:5:p:603-607. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.