Medication safety problems priorities in community pharmacy in Saudi Arabia : a multi-stakeholder Delphi study using the human factors framework

AIM: To achieve multi-stakeholder consensus and prioritisation of medication safety problems in community pharmacies in Saudi Arabia. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: A theoretically-underpinned, three-round Delphi study. SETTING: Saudi Arabia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and public (pharmacy users), pharmacy-related professionals (policymakers, academics, medication safety officers and pharmacy owners) and community pharmacists. METHODS: Round 1 comprised 84 statements derived from a qualitative study. The items were grouped according to the Human Factors Framework (HFF). Rounds 1 and 2 aimed to achieve consensus, 6-point Likert response scale (agreement/disagreement) was used. Round 3 aimed to prioritise the items for which consensus was achieved in Rounds 1 and 2 indicated on a 5-point scale (very important to unimportant). Consensus was predefined as any item that achieved ≥70%. RESULTS: The number of respondents in Rounds 1, 2 and 3 was 161, 120 and 112, respectively. In all three rounds, the majority of respondents were pharmacy users (Round 1 77% (n=124), Round 2 74% (n=89), Round 3 72% (n=81)). Consensus was achieved with 28/84 items. The top five medication safety priorities were: lack of pharmacy facilities such as counselling area, lack of communication between pharmacists and physicians, lack of patient databases, lack of post-registration pharmacist education and pharmacists' long working hours. The professional and pharmacy user groups achieved consensus on similar items through different categories of the HFFs. Community pharmacists had the highest percentage of consensus among the three groups for factors related to work, such as high workload and low salaries. CONCLUSION: This multi-stakeholder study used the HFF to identify and prioritise the main medication safety challenges facing community pharmacy in Saudi Arabia. It indicates the need for changes to practice and policy and further research to address these priorities and promote medication safety at an individual, pharmacy and population level

Examining bedtime procrastination, study engagement, and studyholism in undergraduate students, and their association with insomnia

IntroductionCompulsive overstudying, known as studyholism, is an emerging behavioral addiction. In this study, we examine the prevalence of, and the relationships between, insomnia, study engagement, studyholism, bedtime procrastination among undergraduate students.MethodsThe Studyholism (SI-10), Athens Insomnia (AIS), and bedtime procrastination scales were administered to a convenience sample of 495 university students.ResultsOur findings indicate that the prevalence of insomnia was 75.31%, high studyholism was found in 15.31% of the sample, and increased study engagement was detected in 16.94%. Gender differences analysis revealed that females reported higher studyholism and bedtime procrastination than males. Fifth-year students had higher levels of studyholism than internship (p < 0.001), first-year (p < 0.01), and sixth-year students (p < 0.05). Insomnia was positively related to studyholism and bedtime procrastination. Furthermore, insomnia can be positively predicted by studyholism and bedtime procrastination. Participants with a medium level of studyholism were twice as likely to experience insomnia as those with a low level. Studyholics were six times more susceptible to insomnia than students with low studyholism levels. Compared to individuals with low bedtime procrastination levels, those with medium and high bedtime procrastination were twice as likely to report insomnia.ConclusionOur study highlights the interplay between insomnia, studyholism, and bedtime procrastination. Further, the findings indicate the need to increase awareness of insomnia

Comparison of medical documentation between pharmacist-led anticoagulation clinics and physician-led anticoagulation clinics: A retrospective study

Background and objectives: High-quality documentation is critical in medical settings for providing safe patient care. This study was done with the objective of assessing the standard of medical records in anticoagulation clinics and investigating the distinctions between notes written by pharmacists and physicians. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of data from electronic health records (EHRs) was performed on patients who received anticoagulation and were observed at anticoagulation clinics from October to December 2020. Patients were monitored in two anticoagulation clinics, one administered by pharmacists and the other by physicians. The quality of the documentation was assessed using a score, and the note was assigned one of five categories according to its score: very good, good, average, poor, and very poor. The data was analyzed using Stata/SE 13.1. P value<0.05 was considered significant in all analytical tests. Results: A total of 331 patients were included. While 160 patients (48.3%) were followed by the physician-led clinic, 171 (51.6%) were by the pharmacist-led clinic. The average age of the patients was 54 ± 15. 60.73% of them were female, and 90.3% of them were Saudi nationals. Warfarin was the most widely used anticoagulant (70%), followed by rivaroxaban (15.7%). Compared to physicians, pharmacists demonstrated very strong documentation (54% vs. 18%). The examination of the variables considered in the study revealed that physicians had significantly less drug-drug interaction documentation (17 vs. 71 times) or drug-food interaction documentation (23 vs. 71 times) than pharmacists. In terms of follow-up frequency, pharmacists were found to adhere to the clinic protocol (150 times) more frequently than physicians (104 times). However, there was no significant difference in therapeutic plan documentation between the two groups. (p = 0.416). Conclusion: Pharmacists were more comprehensive in their documentation than physicians in anticoagulation clinics. Unified clinic documentation can ensure consistent documentation within EHRs across all disciplines