EAHP European Statements survey 2015. Issue 3 (21st June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Horák, Petr; Gibbons, Nicholas; Sýkora, Juraj; Peppard, Joan; Miharija Gala, Tajda; Underhill, Jonathan
• Is Part Of: European journal of hospital pharmacy. Volume 24:Issue 3(2017)
• Page Start: 138
• Page End: 146
• Publication Date: 2016-06-21
• Subjects: European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy -- European Association of Hospital Pharmacists -- hospital pharmacy practice -- EAHP survey -- implementation -- healthcare survey -- hospital pharmacy services -- EAHP; Pharmacy -- Periodicals; Hospital pharmacies -- Periodicals; 615.1
• DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2016-000964
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2047-9956

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: The 2015 EAHP European Statements survey was related to sections 2, 5 and 6 of the European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy (Statements). In addition to collection of statistical data about the level of implementation of the Statements, it was also intended to identify important barriers to their implementation. Methods: The online questionnaire was sent to all hospital pharmacies in EAHP member countries. Data were analysed by researchers from Keele University School of Pharmacy, UK and the EAHP Survey Group. Results: There were a total of 949 responses (response rate 18%). In the first part of the survey, data was collected on hospital pharmacy setting. While almost half of hospital pharmacies served over 500 beds, 80% of hospital pharmacies had 10 or less pharmacists. In section B, we gathered evidence about the degree of implementation of sections 2, 5 and 6 of the Statements and the main barriers to and drivers of implementation. Five questions with the lowest implementation level were then further analysed. Only five countries had 50% or more of hospital pharmacies reporting that the hospital pharmacists routinely publish hospital pharmacy practice research. 67% of participants stated that they had contingency plans for medicines shortages. The majority of countries (n=20) have less than half of respondents using computerised decision support to reduce the risk of medication errors. When asked if an audit had been undertaken in the past 3 years to identify priorities in medicines use processes, the mean percentage of positive responses for a country was 58%. Conclusions: EAHP has gained an informative overview of the implementation level as well as the barriers to and drivers of implementation in sections 2, 5 and 6. This is essential to inform the plans for EAHP to best support their implementation.