3.8 Article

Experience of Patients with COPD of Pharmacists' Provided Care: A Qualitative Study

Journal

PHARMACY
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy9030119

Keywords

COPD; pharmacists; qualitative research; patient experience; patient-pharmacist relationship; qualitative description; patient-centred care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that patients with COPD had varied experiences with pharmacy care, depending on the depth of engagement between the patients and pharmacists.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high global morbidity and mortality. Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to provide services which may reduce the burden of this disease on the health system, patients, and their families. The study aimed to understand the perceptions and experiences of patients living with COPD with pharmacists' provided care in COPD diagnosis and management. The study was guided by qualitative description methodology and reported using the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 participants who were recruited from community pharmacies, seniors' centres, a general practice clinic, and a pulmonary rehabilitation centre. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified categories that revealed great variation in participants' experience of pharmacy care based on the depth of patient-pharmacist engagement. Participants who regarded their pharmacists as an essential member of their healthcare team and those who did not, had contrasting experiences with education, communication, and ability to form connections with their pharmacists. For patients with COPD, it is important that the pharmacist is proactive in engaging patients through effective communication, education/provision of relevant information, identification of patient needs, and consistent provision of care with empathy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available