A systematic review of community pharmacies' staff diagnostic assessment and performance in patient consultations

Abstract

Background: Increases in patients seeking advice at pharmacies has led to pharmacy staff engaging in diagnostic behaviours. Approaches to diagnosis include using mnemonics and clinical reasoning. Objectives: The primary aim of this review was to assess the degree to which the criteria authors use to evaluate diagnostic performance in pharmacy consultations, in studies that use simulated patients or vignettes, conform with a clinical reasoning and a mnemonic framework. A secondary aim of the review was to characterise staff performance in the studies, based on the authors' comments of their results. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched between October 2016 and April 2017. Only peer-reviewed studies assessing pharmacy staff's diagnostic performance by using simulated patients or vignettes were eligible for inclusion. Data were extracted about how each study's criteria conformed with clinical reasoning and mnemonic frameworks. A scoring system between 0 and 4 was devised to determine the degree to which studies aligned to these two approaches. Risk of bias was assessed using the NHI Study Quality Assessment Tools. The review was registered in PROSPERO with identification number CRD42017054827. Results: Sixty-eight studies (55 cross-sectional, 11 educational interventions and 2 RCTs) with sample sizes between 10 and 2700 were included in the review. Most studies were of poor or fair quality. Performance of pharmacy staff was overwhelmingly reported as poor by study authors. This was the case regardless of geography, scenario used or whichever assessment framework was utilised. Scrutiny on how authors arrived at these conclusions revealed that mnemonic criteria were employed to assess pharmacy staff's diagnostic performance rather than a clinical reasoning approach. Conclusions: Potentially important aspects of the decision-making process, that clinical reasoning accounts for, were left unexplored. The scope of the number and locations of the included studies is a strength of this review, however, the system employed does not represent a validated tool. Submission Files Included in this PDFFile Name [File Type] cover letter.docx [Cover Letter] Response to reviewers.docx [Response to Reviewers (without Author Details)] Abstract.docx [Abstract]

Community pharmacists’ views and experiences toward over-the-counter medicines misuse and abuse in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study

“…Pharmacists in the present study emphasised the use of the specific pharmacy mnemonic WWHAM to gather clinical when high-risk OTC medicines are requested. However, such standardised approaches do not necessarily improve consultation performance, possibly because the collected information is not always adequate for the decision-making process ( Sinopoulou et al, 2019 ).…”

Self-medication consultations in community pharmacy: an exploratory study on teams’ performance, client-reported outcomes and satisfaction

“…The clinical role is for long defended by national and international pharmacy organisations, contributing to a safer use of commonly taken medications, e.g., non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs. 1,28 However, additional policy and educational efforts are needed to assure a valuable orientation to patient care. 29 On a positive side, the typology of the self-medication consultation i.e.…”

“…[25][26][27] The study results also contrast with a recent systematic review of CPTs diagnostic assessment and work on client consultations. 28 Sixty-three out of the 68 studies included in this review used simulated patients to assess CPTs' practice. The performance was reported as poor by study authors, regardless of geography, the scenario used, or assessment framework adopted.…”

The quality of non-prescription medicine counselling in Finnish pharmacies – a simulated patient study

“…Many studies have used the simulated patient method, but only a few have assessed the quality of counselling using a scoring system. 9, 10 The quality has been measured using different scoring systems that incorporate different areas such as counselling content (questions pharmacists should ask, information pharmacist should give), written instructions used, and manner of counselling (counselling spontaneity, counselling comprehensiveness, eye contact). The quality of counselling has been classified for example as unsatisfactory, satisfactory or excellent; basic or good practice; or by defining the score that adequate advice ought to reach.…”