首页> 外文期刊>BMJ Open >Understanding public trust in services provided by community pharmacists relative to those provided by general practitioners: a qualitative study
【24h】

Understanding public trust in services provided by community pharmacists relative to those provided by general practitioners: a qualitative study

机译:相对于全科医生提供的服务,了解公众对社区药剂师提供的服务的信任:定性研究

获取原文
       

摘要

Objectives To apply sociological theories to understand public trust in extended services provided by community pharmacists relative to those provided by general practitioners (GPs). Design Qualitative study involving focus groups with members of the public. Setting The West of Scotland. Participants 26 purposively sampled members of the public were involved in one of five focus groups. The groups were composed to represent known groups of users and non-users of community pharmacy, namely mothers with young children, seniors and men. Results Trust was seen as being crucial in healthcare settings. Focus group discussions revealed that participants were inclined to draw unfavourable comparisons between pharmacists and GPs. Importantly, participants' trust in GPs was greater than that in pharmacists. Participants considered pharmacists to be primarily involved in medicine supply, and awareness of the pharmacist's extended role was low. Participants were often reluctant to trust pharmacists to deliver unfamiliar services, particularly those perceived to be ‘high risk’. Numerous system-based factors were identified, which reinforce patient trust and confidence in GPs, including GP registration and appointment systems, GPs' expert/gatekeeper role and practice environments. Our data indicate that the nature and context of public interactions with GPs fostered familiarity with a specific GP or practice, which allowed interpersonal trust to develop. By contrast, participants' exposure to community pharmacists was limited. Additionally, a good understanding of the GPs' level of training and role promoted confidence. Conclusion Current UK initiatives, which aim to implement a range of pharmacist-led services, are undermined by lack of public trust. It seems improbable that the public will trust pharmacists to deliver unfamiliar services, which are perceived to be ‘high risk’, unless health systems change in a way that promotes trust in pharmacists. This may be achieved by increasing the quality and quantity of patient interactions with pharmacists and gaining GP support for extended pharmacy services. Article focus Why do the public access GPs for services, which are also available in community pharmacies? What sort of services do the public trust community pharmacists to deliver? What factors underpin greater public trust in GP services relative to community pharmacy services? Key messages Public trust in GPs was greater than that in pharmacists; many were reluctant to trust pharmacists to deliver unfamiliar ‘high-risk’ services. Numerous system-based factors reinforce public trust and confidence in GPs, including GP registration and appointment systems, GPs' expert/gatekeeper role and practice environments. This study suggests that increasing the quality and quantity of patient interactions with pharmacists and gaining GP support for extended pharmacy services could build public trust. Strengths and limitations of this study This is the first study to apply sociological perspectives of trust to understand public perspectives of community pharmacy. The qualitative approach has allowed us to gather in-depth information in an under-researched area. The study methodology limits generalisation, although theme saturation was achieved and the context of the study is explicitly defined.
机译:目的应用社会学理论来理解公众对社区药师相对于全科医生(GPs)提供的扩展服务的信任。设计定性研究,涉及与公众成员的焦点小组。设置苏格兰西部。参与者26个有意抽样的公众参与了五个焦点小组之一。这些小组的组成代表社区药房的使用者和非使用者的已知群体,即有年幼子女的母亲,老年人和男子。结果信任在医疗机构中被认为是至关重要的。专题小组讨论表明,参与者倾向于在药剂师和全科医生之间进行不利的比较。重要的是,参与者对全科医生的信任比药剂师更大。参加者认为药剂师主要参与药品供应,并且对药剂师的扩展作用的认识还很低。参与者通常不愿信任药剂师来提供不熟悉的服务,尤其是那些被认为是“高风险”的服务。确定了许多基于系统的因素,这些因素增强了患者对全科医生的信任和信心,包括全科医生注册和任命系统,全科医生的专家/关守角色和实践环境。我们的数据表明,与GP进行公共互动的性质和背景促进了对特定GP或实践的熟悉,从而使人际信任得以发展。相反,参与者与社区药师的接触是有限的。此外,对GP的培训水平和角色的充分了解可以增强信心。结论当前英国旨在实施一系列由药剂师主导的服务的举措因缺乏公众信任而受到损害。公众不太可能会信任药剂师来提供不熟悉的服务,而这种服务被认为是“高风险”的,除非卫生系统发生变化以促进对药剂师的信任。这可以通过提高患者与药剂师互动的质量和数量并获得扩展药房服务的GP支持来实现。文章重点为什么公众可以从社区药房获得全科医生的服务?公众信任社区的药剂师可以提供哪种服务?相对于社区药房服务,哪些因素可增强公众对GP服务的信任度?重要信息公众对全科医生的信任比药剂师大;许多人不愿信任药剂师来提供陌生的“高风险”服务。基于系统的众多因素增强了公众对GP的信任和信心,包括GP注册和任命系统,GP的专家/关守角色和实践环境。这项研究表明,提高患者与药剂师互动的质量和数量以及获得扩展药房服务的全科医生支持可以建立公众信任。这项研究的优点和局限性这是第一个应用信任的社会学观点来理解社区药房公众观点的研究。定性方法使我们能够在研究不足的区域收集深入的信息。尽管实现了主题饱和并且明确定义了研究的背景,但研究方法限制了概括。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号