Search

Background From 2017 a clinical pharmacy programme provides pharmaceutical interviews to patients of the outpatient oncology unit of the university hospital. At the end of each interview, patients receive a personalised pharmaceutical plan, including a summarised table of their medicines to help them manage drug intake and adverse events. Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess patient satisfaction regarding pharmaceutical interviews, and aimed at improving the quality of our patient interviews. Material and methods The 80 consecutives patients who received a first pharmaceutical interview in the outpatient oncology unit between June and September 2018 were included. After the pharmaceutical interview and oral consent, patients completed an 8-item satisfaction questionnaire in the absence of the pharmacist. The questionnaire also included a free-text response section as well as a general assessment of the interview. The topics covered were: confidentiality, interview duration, professionalism, empathy and scientific knowledge of the pharmacist. The patients could choose between three answers: completely satisfied, somewhat satisfied and unsatisfied. The recorded responses for the general assessment varied from 1 (not satisfied) to 5 (completely satisfied). Results Regarding the environment of the interview, 97% of patients were satisfied with the duration, 90% were satisfied with confidentiality and 89% were satisfied with the location. Regarding the content of the interview, 99% of patients were satisfied with the pharmacist’s responses and 98% were satisfied with the personalised pharmaceutical plan. Ninety-four per cent were satisfied with the treatment explanations. In the free-text, the main points relayed by patients were: Key strengths: clear explanations, well–designed documents, quality of listening, answers to questions, availability, attention given to patients. Weak points: improve privacy, develop alternative medicines. Regarding the general assessment of patients’ satisfaction, 1% gave a score of 3/5, 30% gave a score of 4/5% and 69% gave a score of 5/5. Conclusion This study shows that the majority of patients were satisfied with the pharmaceutical interview. Another study is ongoing which assesses both the clinical and economical impacts of the pharmaceutical interventions carried out during these interviews. References and/or acknowledgements http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2014–000591 No conflict of interest.