1. IMPLEMENTATION OF BENCHMARKING GUIDELINES IN COMMUNITY PHARMACIES WK Wong 1, SS Chua 1, JSH Tan 2 1 Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya 2 Malaysian Pharmaceutical Society, Kuala Lumpur

2. CONTENTS 1.Introduction 2.Aim and Objectives 3.Methodology 4.Results and Discussion 5.Conclusions

3. INTRODUCTION

4. BENCHMARKING GUIDELINES (BMGs):  Pharmaceutical Services Division of MOH has collaborated with the MPS to develop BMGs  Adopted by all registered CPs by Jan 2006.  Areas - premises, equipments, personnel, references and SOPs

5. AIM & OBJECTIVES

6. AIM To determine the extent community pharmacies have complied with the BMGs OBJECTIVES 1) To investigate the time frame required for community pharmacies to adopt the BMGs. 2) To identify problems associated with the implementation of BMGs

7. METHODOLOGY

8. Development of methodology Ethics Committee Pilot study Retrieve address & contact number [1346 CPs] Post questionnaire Data collection Data analysis Report and discussion 371 respondents (29.19%) Exclusion: 1.Ceased operation 2.Shifted 3.Chain pharmacy with no pharmacist [ 1271 CPs] Figure 1: Flowchart of Methodology

9. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

10. Particular of respondentsNumber of respondents(%) Gender (n=370) Female212 ( 57.3%) Male158 ( 42.7 %) Age (n=363) 21 – 3099 ( 27.3%) 31 – 40146 ( 40.2%) 41 – 5081 ( 22.3% ) 51 – 6029 ( 8.0% ) >608 (2.2%) Years as community pharmacists (n=362) 1 – 5113 ( 31.2%) 6 – 10116 ( 32.0% ) 11 – 1552( 14.4%) 16 – 2047( 13.0%) >2034( 9.4%) Types of employment (n=369) Self-employment/ Share Holder203 ( 55.0%) Full time employee160 ( 43.4% ) Part time/ Locum6 ( 1.6% ) Table 1: Demographic Data of Respondents

11. Figure 2 : Types of Ownership of CPs (n=370) I – Independent C – Chain

12. Figure 3: Types of services provided by CPs (n=371)

13. Compliance to BMGs  51.0% of the respondents were aware of the BMGs  Mean + SD extent of compliance  62.55 + 21.1, median = 65%

15. BMGs Yes, n (%) Types and ownership of CPs P value I, pharmacists, Yes/Total resp. (%) I, non- pharmacist, Yes/Total resp. (%) C, group of pharmacists, Yes/Total resp. (%) C, corporate body, Yes/Total resp. (%) Display name of pharmacist(s) on duty 212 (57.5) 116/219 (53.0%) 25/59 (42.4%) 11/20 (55.0%) 60/70 (85.7%) 0.000* Screening area with signage 155 (42.1) 82/218 (37.6%) 23/60 (38.3%) 13/20 (65.0%) 37/69 (53.6%) 0.017 Table 2: Percentage of compliance with premises requirement in BMGs and it’s association with types of ownership

17. BMGs Yes, n (%) Types and ownership of CPs P value I, pharmacists, Yes/Total resp. (%) I, non- pharmacist, Yes/Total resp. (%) C, group of pharmacists, Yes/Total resp. (%) C, corporate body, Yes/Total resp. (%) Tile/ glass slabs with spatula 199 (53.9) 133/219 (60.7%) 39/60 (65.0%) 11/20 (55.0%) 16/69 (23.2%) 0.000* Measuring cylinders of various sizes 123 (33.4) 95/219 (43.4%) 15/59 (25.4%) 4/20 (20.0%) 9/69 (13.0%) 0.000* Computers - inventory/ stock control 275 (74.5) 149/219 (68.0%) 42/59 (71.2%) 18/20 (90.0%) 66/70 (94.3%) 0.000* Computers - pharmacy info. software 132 (36.0) 85/218 (39.0%) 22/59 (37.3%) 10/20 (50.0%) 14/69 (20.3%) 0.019 Table 3: Percentage of compliance with equipments requirement in BMGs and it’s association with types of ownership

18. Figure 6:Percentage of Compliance with Personnel and References Requirement in BMGs

19. BMGs Yes, n (%) Types and ownership of CPs P value I, pharmacists, Yes/Total resp. (%) I, non- pharmacist, Yes/Total resp. (%) C, group of pharmacists, Yes/Total resp. (%) C, corporate body, Yes/Total resp. (%) Pharmacist(s) with prof. dress code 259 (70.6) 139/216 (64.4%) 41/60 (68.3%) 13/20 (65.0%) 65/70 (92.9%) 0.000* Pharmacist(s) with name tag 190 (51.5) 95/218 (43.6%) 21/60 (35.0%) 11/20 (55.0%) 62/70 (88.6%) 0.000* Soft copies of references 175 (49.2) 113/209 (54.1%) 31/58 (53.4%) 10/19 (52.6%) 20/69 (29.0%) 0.003* Table 4: Percentage of compliance with personnel and references requirement in BMGs and it’s association with types of ownership

21. BMGs Yes, n (%) Types and ownership of CPs P value I, pharmacists, Yes/Total resp. (%) I, non- pharmacist, Yes/Total resp. (%) C, group of pharmacists, Yes/Total resp. (%) C, corporate body, Yes/Total resp. (%) Extemporaneous preparation 146 (41.8) 101/206 (49.0%) 21/57 (36.8%) 10/17 58.8%) 14/68 (20.6%) 0.000* Table 5: Percentage of compliance with Written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) requirement in BMGs and it’s association with types of ownership

22. Figure 8: Reasons for not complying with BMGs(n=371)

23. Figure 9:Comparison of Reasons between Independent Pharmacy and Chain Pharmacy for not complying with BMGs

24. CONCLUSION

25.  Level of compliance with benchmarking guidelines varied between CPs.  Need to review the guidelines before it is implemented fully.  Professional bodies and authorities concerned should identify problems for implementation and provide more information or assistance

26. THANK YOU