Enhancing the service quality of community pharmacies for non-prescription medicines based on the perspectives of pharmacists and patients: a qualitative study

Developing a quality framework for community pharmacy: a systematic review of international literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify the defining features of the quality of community pharmacy (CP) services and synthesise these into an evidence-based quality framework.

DESIGN

Systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

International research evidence (2005 onwards) identified from six electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO) was reviewed systematically from October 2022 to January 2023. Search terms related to 'community pharmacy' and 'quality'.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Titles and abstracts were screened against inclusion or exclusion criteria, followed by full-text screening by at least two authors. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies relevant to quality in CP were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Following narrative synthesis, a patient and public involvement event was held to further refine the quality framework.

RESULTS

Following the title and abstract screening of 11 493 papers, a total of 81 studies (qualitative and quantitative) were included. Of the 81 included studies, 43 investigated quality dimensions and/or factors influencing CP service quality; 21 studies assessed patient satisfaction with and/or preferences for CP, and 17 studies reported the development and assessment of quality indicators, standards and guidelines for CPs, which can help define quality.The quality framework emerging from the global literature consisted of six dimensions: person-centred care, access, environment, safety, competence and integration within local healthcare systems. Quality was defined as having timely and physical access to personalised care in a suitable environment that is safe and effective, with staff competent in the dispensing process and pharmacy professionals possessing clinical knowledge and diagnostic skills to assess and advise patients relative to pharmacists' increasingly clinical roles.

CONCLUSION

The emerging framework could be used to measure and improve the quality of CP services. Further research and feasibility testing are needed to validate the framework according to the local healthcare context.

The role of perceived service quality and price competitiveness on consumer patronage of and intentions towards community pharmacies

BACKGROUND

When consumers choose a service provider, they trade-off their perceptions of service quality with their perceptions of the cost of engaging with the service provider. For community pharmacy owners and managers, it is important to understand the relative impact on loyalty of providing the extra resources to improve service quality versus forsaking gross profit by discounting prices. The aim of this study was to explore the relative effects of consumers' perceptions of service quality (pSQ) and price competitiveness (pPC) on patronage loyalty (patronage history of the rated pharmacy), patronage disloyalty (patronage history at other pharmacies) and loyalty intentions.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study conducted within Australia using an online survey administered to members of a consumer marketing panel. Eligible participants were adults taking 2 or more prescription medicines and had attended a community pharmacy within the past 4 weeks. Participants were asked to rate the pharmacy they had last visited, self-report patronage history of that and other pharmacies and report the brand of pharmacy visited. Previously validated scales were used for consumers' perceptions of service quality (pSQ) and loyalty intentions. New scales were developed for pPC and self-reported patronage loyalty and disloyalty. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to validate the measurement model. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with robust estimator (EQS) was used to test the relationships between the variables. Sensitivity analysis, in the presence of covariates were performed with multivariate regression analysis with bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 303 participants. Most consumers had visited the rated pharmacy more often than once monthly and most had visited only 1 or 2 pharmacies in the past 12 months for prescription medicines. Overall, participants rated pSQ, pPC highly and expressed high loyalty intentions. The SEM was a good fit for the data. The model predicted 12%, 15% and 69% of the variation in patronage loyalty and patronage disloyalty and loyalty intentions, respectively. The effect of pSQ on patronage was 0.38 (p < 0.05) for loyalty and -0.38 (p < 0.05) on disloyalty whereas the effect of pPC was marginal. The total effect of pSQ and pPC on loyalty intentions was 0.64 (<0.05) and 0.20 (p < 0.05) and in sensitivity analyses, no other covariate, including pharmacy brand was significant.

CONCLUSION

In order to drive loyalty behavior and generate loyalty intentions, providing a high-quality service appears to be far more effective than creating perceptions that the pharmacy has competitive prices. This finding affords a motivation for both discount AND non-discount brand pharmacies to undertake the steps needed to improve service quality.