IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0240672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is the attitude towards and the current practice of information exchange during self-medication counselling in German community pharmacies? An assessment through self-report and non-participant observation

Author

Listed:
  • Jasmin Mina Seiberth
  • Katharina Moritz
  • Nagihan Kücükay
  • Susanne Schiek
  • Thilo Bertsche

Abstract

Background: Guidelines encourage relevant information exchange between pharmaceutical staff and patients during self-medication consultation. Thereby, assessing the patient’s situation and providing information is crucial for patient safety. So far, limited studies have investigated this information exchange, particularly in Germany. We aimed to assess the attitude towards and the current practice of guideline-recommended information exchange in German community pharmacies. Methods: In total, twelve guideline-recommended parameters were predefined for gathering patient-related information and for the provision of information. These information exchange parameters were evaluated in two parts: Firstly, in a self-report of pharmaceutical staff via an online questionnaire to assess the reported importance, difficulty and frequency of the parameters as well as barriers to their implementation; secondly, in a non-participant observation in five pharmacies to evaluate the actual consultation practice. Results: In the self-report, all parameters were rated by more than 76% of 1068 participants as important. ‘Concurrent medication’ was determined to be the most difficult parameter to address (54%). All parameters of information gathering were rated to be addressed during routine counselling by at least 70% of the respondents. Parameters of information provision were all rated to be addressed by at least 45%. ‘Lack of patient’s interest’ was identified as the most frequent barrier to appropriate counselling (84%). During the observation, the information gathering parameters were each addressed between 8 to 63% in the consultations, parameters of information provision between 3 to 34%. Conclusion: Despite broad acceptance, the guideline parameters of information exchange were comparatively little addressed during the actual routine care. This might be due to a perceived ‘lack of patient’s interest’ in counselling. Our results suggest to scrutinize whether patients are in fact not interested in counselling and to further explore how the positive intention of pharmaceutical staff towards information exchange can be further translated into everyday practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Jasmin Mina Seiberth & Katharina Moritz & Nagihan Kücükay & Susanne Schiek & Thilo Bertsche, 2020. "What is the attitude towards and the current practice of information exchange during self-medication counselling in German community pharmacies? An assessment through self-report and non-participant o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0240672
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240672
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240672&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0240672?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0240672. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.