EAHP European Statements baseline survey 2015: methodology

Underhill, Jonathan; Gibbons, Nicholas

doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2016-000893

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The questions were compared by percentage of negative questions. (Please refer to the later paper4 in this issue for more information about questions and used Likert scale. Please also note the question numbering key—first two numbers refer to the Statement number, eg, S21 refers to the Statement S2.1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

EAHP European Statements baseline survey 2015: results

Hořák

Peppard

Sykora³

et al. 2016

Eur J Hosp Pharm

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was further complicated due to many language mutations the survey had been presented in. For few countries, the response rate was not high enough to make appropriate conclusions 4. Also, the level of awareness of Statements remains challenging in some countries, as discussed further in the article (pages 72–75) 6…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EAHP European Statements baseline survey 2015: results

Hořák

Peppard

Sykora³

et al. 2016

Eur J Hosp Pharm

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The response rates from the 2014–2015 baseline survey3 are given in the final column for comparison. The minimal difference in overall response rate indicates that using only an English version appeared to have no significant impact on response rate; it may have affected the numbers of responses in different countries, but this will need to be confirmed by further investigation in future surveys.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

EAHP European Statements survey 2015

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe 2015 EAHP Statement Survey was related to Sections 2, 5 and 6 of the European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy. In addition to the collection of statistical data about the level of implementation of the Statements, it was also intended to identify important barriers to their implementation. MethodsThe online questionnaire was sent to all hospital pharmacies in EAHP member countries. Data were analysed by researchers from Keele University School of Pharmacy, UK and the EAHP Survey Group. ResultsThere were a total of 949 responses (response rate of 18 %). In the first part of the Survey, the authors collected data about the hospital pharmacy setting. While almost half of hospital pharmacies served over 500 beds, 80% of hospital pharmacies had 10 or less pharmacists. In section B, the authors gathered evidence about the degree of implementation of Sections 2, 5 and 6 of the European Statements and the main barriers to and drivers of implementation. Five questions with the lowest implementation level were then further analysed.Only five countries had 50% or more of hospital pharmacies reporting that the hospital pharmacists routinely publish hospital pharmacy practice research. 67 % of participants stated that they had contingency plans for medicines shortages. The majority of countries (20) have less than half of respondents using computerised decision support to reduce the risk of medication errors. When asked if an audit had been undertaken in the last three years to identify priorities in medicines use processes, the mean percentage of positive responses for a country was 58%. ConclusionsEAHP has gained an informative overview of the implementation level as well as the barriers to and drivers of implementation in Sections 2, 5 and 6. This is essential to inform the plans for EAHP to best support their implementation.

show abstract