A Pharmacy Assessment Visit
I paid a visit to a pharmacy to assess the quality of services offered to patients in that outlet. The assessment visit was carried out twice, both when the pharmacy was busy with patients and also when there were fewer activities taking place. the rationale for conducting both visits was to qualitatively ascertain the standards of services offered whether those who are being attended to were more or less in number. It was also imperative to do this in order to assess and evaluate pharmacy staff and how they were attending to patients and other visitors. I intended to assess the pharmacy based on the following criteria:
- The pharmacy’s physical surrounding
- How pharmacy staff members were interacting with patients and other visitors
- Presence of any barriers which would impede clarity in information
- the exchange between staff and patients
- How pharmacy services are promoted for instance the use of printed materials and so on.
- Verbal communication is easy to follow and understand.
According to my, the above services would distinguish quality services in any given pharmacy.
Nevertheless, after a careful assessment of the pharmacy’s immediate environment and the nature of services that were being offered, my expectations were fully met; there were several loopholes and missing links in the pharmacy.
To begin with, the pharmacy’s immediate environment was rather crowded and could not permit more than five patients to be served at a go with minimal delay. This was especially notable during peak hours of the pharmacy operation. I observed that some patients would wait for long queuing than it was necessary before being attended to. According to Navarro (2001), a pharmacy establishment should be in a position to offer prompt services and managers of such facilities should be shrewd enough in advance planning should there be a need for expansion.
Although some pharmacy staff was interacting quite well with patients and in a cordial, procedural manner, this was not the case with others. Staff members should be well trained in matters of public relations more so because they are dealing with individuals who may be physically and emotionally weak (Peterson, 2004). I personally noted a few cases of ignorance from some staff members who could not fully concentrate with one patient. This also affected the patient understanding of some drugs which were being dispensed owing to the fact that an attendant could not get back to them for feedback.
There were no visible impediments to communication between pharmacy staff and patients because the English language which was being used seemed common to both. In spite of the lack of communication barrier, I noted some instances of negligence on patients who appeared to be in their old age. This age group had one important need: to be taken through slowly in the process of giving instructions and also be given clear feedback in case of any inquiries. To some patients who were in their 50s, there was a lack of clarity in verbal communication as they were being given instructions on how to use the drugs and some would walk away dissatisfied. Communication is key to running a successful pharmacy (Institute of Medicine, 2004).
Over and above the limitations I observed at the pharmacy, I was impressed with its promotional services. It is often a basic requirement for a pharmacy to elaborate the range of services it offers in addition to tentative costs. There were sufficient, well-printed materials that highlighted numerous details about the pharmacy. The materials were also easy to read and understand thereby limiting the frequency of inquiries to the pharmacy staff members.
References
Institute of Medicine (2004). Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Navarro, R (2001). Managed Care Pharmacy Practice. Ontario: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Peterson, M.A (2004). Managing pharmacy practice: principles, strategies, and systems. Florida: CRC Press.