| Summary: | OBJECTIVE OF STUDY: The objective of the study was to examine the quality of
interactions occurring between pharmacists and clients, the facilitators and barriers
shaping the way pharmacists communicate with clients, and the use of client satisfaction
ratings as an outcome measure for pharmacist-client communication.
METHODS AND MEASURES: Verbal exchanges between consenting pharmacists
(n=100) and clients (n=786) were audio-recorded during four-hour, on-site, observation
periods. Clients rated their interaction with the pharmacist using an 11-item Client
Satisfaction Rating instrument, while pharmacists completed a questionnaire examining the
factors predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing their communication with clients.
Subsequent to data collection, an expert panel listened to the audiotapes and rated the
quality of the interactions using a 9-item Quality of Communication rating scale.
FINDINGS: The mean overall expert rating for the pharmacist-client interactions was 4.0
(out of 7), and represented a "satisfactory" rating. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis
revealed that the predisposing, enabling and reinforcing variables measured in the
Pharmacists' Questionnaire accounted for 19% of the variance in pharmacists' technical
quality scores. Client satisfaction ratings and expert ratings of communication quality were
modestly correlated (r=0.14; p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: While the 60% of consultations in this study met or exceeded the
mandated communication requirements of pharmacy practice, pharmacists were uniformly
weakest in their client assessment skills and in their discussions of medication precautions
and non-pharmacologic approaches to symptom management. Most pharmacists in the
study reported being highly predisposed to communicating with their clients, but many
lacked the reinforcing factors, and to a lesser degree, enabling factors that are considered
necessary to sustain quality communication in the workplace. Client satisfaction ratings
were positively skewed with little variability, making it difficult to detect a relationship
between the expert and client ratings. Reasons why the study was unable to capture more
of the variance in its proposed relationships are provided, as well as areas for future
research.
KEY WORDS: pharmacist-client communication, client satisfaction, quality
|
|---|
