Journal article
Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC, 2020
APA
Click to copy
Whaley, C., Bancsi, A., Burns, C. M., & Grindrod, K. (2020). Pharmacists’ perspectives on the value of reason for use information. Canadian Pharmacists Journal : CPJ = Revue Des Pharmaciens Du Canada : RPC. https://doi.org/10.1177/1715163520946052
Chicago/Turabian
Click to copy
Whaley, C., Ashley Bancsi, Catherine M. Burns, and K. Grindrod. “Pharmacists’ Perspectives on the Value of Reason for Use Information.” Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC (2020).
MLA
Click to copy
Whaley, C., et al. “Pharmacists’ Perspectives on the Value of Reason for Use Information.” Canadian Pharmacists Journal : CPJ = Revue Des Pharmaciens Du Canada : RPC, 2020, doi:10.1177/1715163520946052.
BibTeX Click to copy
@article{c2020a,
title = {Pharmacists’ perspectives on the value of reason for use information},
year = {2020},
journal = {Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC},
doi = {10.1177/1715163520946052},
author = {Whaley, C. and Bancsi, Ashley and Burns, Catherine M. and Grindrod, K.}
}
Background: The indication for a particular medication, or its reason for use (RFU), is important information for prescribers, pharmacists and patients but is not often communicated in writing from prescribers to pharmacists. Adding RFU to a prescription and a medication label would ensure that pharmacists are confident that they are providing high-quality, accurate patient care. This study aims to describe the perspectives of pharmacists on how receiving RFU from prescribers would affect their practice and how pharmacists putting this information on prescriptions would affect patients. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 pharmacists in Southwestern Ontario. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts, leading to 4 major themes. Results: Pharmacists expressed that RFU should be formatted to ensure that it is of clinical utility via the use of written text and noted that either medical or lay (also known as plain) language would be appropriate for use. Pharmacists indicated that patient privacy should be considered when writing RFU on labels and that patient preference with respect to the addition of RFU should dictate its inclusion on a medication label. Pharmacist access to RFU was universally acknowledged to improve patient safety by providing pharmacists with more information to determine whether the given medication was indicated. Conclusions: This study provides further information about the impact that having access to RFU would have on pharmacy practice and can be used to advocate for the inclusion of RFU information with prescriptions to improve patient outcomes. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2020;153:xx-xx.