You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 11, Issue 3
  • Patient and public perception and experience of community pharmacy services post-discharge in the UK: a rapid review and qualitative study

Article Text

Article menu
XML
Health services research
Original research
Patient and public perception and experience of community pharmacy services post-discharge in the UK: a rapid review and qualitative study
  1. Sarah Khayyat1,
  2. Philippa Walters2,
  3. Cate Whittlesea3,
  4. Hamde Nazar2
  1. 1Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
  2. 2School of Pharmacy, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
  3. 3Research Department of Practice and Policy, UCL School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Hamde Nazar; hamde.nazar{at}newcastle.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To investigate the perception and experience of patients and the public (PP) about community pharmacy (CP) services and other primary care services after hospital discharge back home.

Design and setting A rapid review and qualitative study exploring PP perceptions of primary care, focusing on CP services in the UK.

Methods A mixed-methods approach was adopted including a rapid review undertaken between 24 April and 8 May 2019 across four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL). Semistructured interviews were then conducted investigating for shifts in current PP perception, but also nuanced opinion pertaining to CP services. A convenience sampling technique was used through two online PP groups for recruitment. Thematic framework analysis was applied to interview transcripts.

Participants Any consenting adults ≥18 years old were invited regardless of their medical condition, and whether they had used post-discharge services or not.

Results Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Patients were generally supportive and satisfied with primary care services. However, some barriers to the use of these services included: resource limitations; poor communication between healthcare providers or between patient and healthcare providers; and patients’ lack of awareness of available services. From the 11 interviewees, there was a lack of awareness of CP post-discharge services. Nevertheless, there was general appreciation of the benefit of CP services to patients, professionals and wider healthcare system. Potential barriers to uptake and use included: accessibility, resource availability, lack of awareness, and privacy and confidentiality issues related to information-sharing. Several participants felt the uptake of such services should be improved.

Conclusion There was alignment between the review and qualitative study about high patient acceptance, appreciation and satisfaction with primary care services post-discharge. Barriers to the use of CP post-discharge services identified from interviews resonated with the existing literature; this is despite developments in pharmacy practice in recent times towards clinical and public health services.

  • organisation of health services
  • quality in healthcare
  • primary care
  • qualitative research
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043344

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @NazarHamde

    • Contributors HN, PW, CW and SK conceived and designed the study. SK undertook the data collection. Data analysis and interpretation was led by SK but with consultation with HN, PW and CW. HN, PW, CW and SK developed the discussion together. SK and HN drafted the first version of the manuscript, and PW and CW reviewed, revised and provided feedback. SK, HN, PW and CW finalised the draft manuscript and all approved the submission.

    • Funding This research was supported by the Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau in the UK and Umm Al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia (award/grant number: N/A).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval This study received ethical approval from the Faculty of Medical Sciences Ethical Committee at Newcastle University (Ref. No. 13444/2018). NHS ethics submission was not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. Data from anonymised interviewee transcripts are available on request.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.