Delegation: a solution to the workload problem? Observations and interviews with community pharmacists in England.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe how pharmacists utilise and perceive delegation in the community setting. METHOD: Non-participant observations and semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of community pharmacists working in Kent between July and October 2011. Content analysis was undertaken to determine key themes and the point of theme saturation informed sample size. Findings from observations were also compared against those from interviews. KEY FINDINGS: Observations and interviews were undertaken with 11 pharmacists. Observations showed that delegation occurred in four different forms: assumed, active, partial and reverse. It was also employed to varying extents within the different pharmacies. Interviews revealed mixed views on delegation. Some pharmacists presented positive attitudes towards delegation while others were concerned about maintaining accountability for delegated tasks, particularly in terms of accuracy checking of dispensed medication. Other pharmacists noted the ability to delegate was not a skill they found inherently easy. Comparison of observation and interview data highlighted discrepancies between tasks pharmacists perceived they delegated and what they actually delegated. CONCLUSIONS: Effective delegation can potentially promote better management of workload to provide pharmacists with additional time to spend on cognitive pharmaceutical services. To do this, pharmacists' reluctance to delegate must be addressed. Lack of insight into own practice might be helped by self-reflection and feedback from staff. Also, a greater understanding of legal accountability in the context of delegation needs to be achieved. Finally, delegation is not just dependent on pharmacists, but also on support staff; ensuring staff are empowered and equipped to take on delegated roles is essential.

Describing interruptions, multi-tasking and task-switching in community pharmacy: a qualitative study in England.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence around interruptions, multi-tasking and task-switching in the community pharmacy setting. There is also evidence to suggest some of these practices may be associated with dispensing errors. Up to date, qualitative research on this subject is limited. OBJECTIVE: To explore interruptions, multi-tasking and task-switching in the community setting; utilising an ethnographic approach to provide a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding such practices.Setting Community pharmacies in England, July-October 2011. METHOD: An ethnographic approach was taken. Non participant, unstructured observations were utilised to make records of pharmacists' every activity. Case studies were formed by combining field notes with detailed information on pharmacists and their respective pharmacy businesses. Content analysis was undertaken both manually and electronically, using NVivo 10. Main outcome measure To determine the factors influencing interruptions, multitasking and task-switching in the community pharmacy setting. RESULTS: Response rate was 12 % (n = 11). Over fifteen days, a total of 123 h and 58 min of observations were recorded in 11 separate pharmacies of 11 individual pharmacists. The sample was evenly split by gender (female n = 6; male n = 5) and pharmacy ownership (independent n = 5; multiple n = 6). Employment statuses included employee pharmacists (n = 6), owners (n = 4) and a locum (n = 1). Average period of registration as a pharmacist was 19 years (range 5-39 years). Average prescription busyness of pharmacies ranged from 2600 to 24,000 items dispensed per month. All observed pharmacists' work was dominated by interruptions, task-switches, distractions and multi-tasking, often to manage a barrage of conflicting demands. These practices were observed to be part of a deep-rooted culture in the community setting. In particular, support staff regularly contributed to interruptions and distractions for pharmacists; pharmacists in turn continued to permit these. Novel directional work maps illustrated the extent and direction of task-switching and multi-tasking employed by pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: In this study pharmacists' working practices were permeated by interruptions, distractions and multi-tasking. Task-switching was also frequently employed by pharmacists. Changes to working practices by both pharmacists and support staff would help to minimise these which in turn has the potential to lead to safer and more efficient methods of working.

Workload and its impact on community pharmacists' job satisfaction and stress: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to identify, review and evaluate published literature on workloads of pharmacists in community pharmacy. It included identification of research involving the measurement of pharmacist workload and its impact on stress levels and job satisfaction. The review focused on literature relating to practice in the UK. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from 1995 to May 2011. In addition, manual searches were completed for documents not available electronically. The findings were analysed with specific focus on research methodology, workload and its impact on pharmacist job satisfaction and stress levels. KEY FINDINGS: Thirteen relevant studies relating to workload in community pharmacy alone or in conjunction with job satisfaction and stress were identified. One utilised both qualitative and quantitative methods to identify differences in pharmacist workload in retail pharmacy businesses before and after the implementation of the 2005 English and Welsh community pharmacy contractual framework. This indicated that pharmacists spend most of their working day dispensing. The majority of studies suggested community pharmacists generally perceived that workload levels were increasing. Several also stated that increased workload contributed to increasing job-related stress and decreasing job satisfaction. No studies reporting dispensing rates for community pharmacies in the UK were identified and there was limited evidence concerning time devoted to non-dispensing services. One study investigated the differences between self-estimated and actual workload. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst there is a clear perception that the type and amount of work output expected from individual community pharmacists has been changing and increasing over the last few decades, pharmacists are viewed as continuing to remain based in the dispensary. The impact of such changes to the practice of community pharmacy in the UK is poorly defined, although links have been made to increasing levels of pharmacist job dissatisfaction and stress.