Could it be done safely? Pharmacists views on safety and clinical outcomes from the introduction of an advanced role for technicians

There is ample evidence that pharmacists' interventions in patient care improve patient outcomes; however, community pharmacists do not necessarily have the time available to undertake these roles. One way to address this problem is to enable technicians to take on a greater role in the mechanical aspects of the dispensing process.

This study aimed to investigate the opinions of New Zealand pharmacists regarding the potential introduction of an advanced technician's role into the New Zealand pharmacy setting.

The survey was sent to all pharmacists registered with the New Zealand Pharmacy Council who had indicated a willingness to receive research-related requests (n = 2095). The full survey consisted of yes/no questions and five-point Likert scale questions regarding opinions. A number of the questions allowed respondents to make free-text comments. One of these questions focused on the separation of the clinical and mechanical aspects of the dispensing process. The free-text responses to this question were subjected to thematic analysis.

Of 2095 surveys mailed out 736 were returned, yielding a return rate of 36%. Many of the respondents took the opportunity to make comments to individual questions in the overall survey and 400 pharmacists provided additional comments to the specific question regarding the separation of the clinical from the mechanical process of dispensing. The comments received centered on three key themes: Improvements to clinical outcomes, the impact, both positive and negative, on dispensing errors, and the need for quality procedures to minimize the safety risk.

The pharmacists were of the opinion that the separation of clinical from mechanical parts of the dispensing process would increase the time available to spend interacting with patients. Coupled with more time dedicated to a clinical assessment of prescriptions they could appreciate this would improve clinical outcomes for the patients. Clear and stringent guidelines and standard operating procedures were proposed to ensure that safety standards do not change.