3.8 Article

Observation of a Pharmacist-Conducted Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis Point-of-Care Test: A Time and Motion Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACY PRACTICE
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 284-291

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0897190017710518

关键词

community pharmacy; time and motion; point-of-care; group A streptococcus; pharyngitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Acute pharyngitis is among the most common infectious diseases encountered in the United States, resulting in 13 million patient visits annually, with group A streptococcus (GAS) being a common causative pathogen. It is estimated that annual expenditures for the treatment of adult pharyngitis will exceed US$1.2 billion annually. This substantial projection reinforces the need to evaluate diagnosis and treatment of adult pharyngitis in nontraditional settings. Objective: The objective of this research is to quantify the amount of pharmacist time required to complete a point-of-care (POC) test for a patient presenting with pharyngitis symptoms. Methods: A standardized patient with pharyngitis symptoms visited 11 pharmacies for POC testing services for a total of 33 patient encounters. An observer was present at each encounter and recorded the total encounter time, divided into 9 categories. Pharmacists conducted POC testing in 1 of 2 ways: sequence 1-pharmacists performed all service-related tasks; sequence 2-both pharmacists and pharmacist interns performed service-related tasks. Results: The average time for completion of a POC test for GAS pharyngitis was 25.3 +/- 4.8 minutes. The average pharmacist participation time per encounter was 12.7 +/- 3.0 minutes (sequence 1), which decreased to 2.6 +/- 1.1 minutes when pharmacist interns were involved in the testing (sequence 2). Conclusion: Although additional studies are required to further assess service feasibility, this study indicates that a GAS POC testing service could be implemented in a community pharmacy with limited disruption or change to workflow and staff.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据