Objectives: To explore the pharmacist intervention documentation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methods: This is a 4-month cross-sectional self-administrated survey on documentation of pharmacist intervention. The study consisted of two parts: the first part collected demographic information and the second part comprised of a questionnaire with 18 questions. The second part included policy and procedure, type of data through pharmacist intervention, reporting workload of pharmacist intervention documentation. All types of pharmacist professionals were included in this survey. We used a 5-point Likert response scale system to obtain the responses. There were open-and close-ended questions. The survey was distributed through the social media (WhatsApp) and other social media to more than 1000 pharmacist professionals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The survey was distributed in an electronic format and the data were analyzed through Survey Monkey system. Results: A total of 128 pharmacists responded to the survey. Of them, 106 (82.81%) were Saudi and 22 (17.19%) were non-Saudi professionals. The majority of the responders were in the age group of 25-34 years and 35-44 years (44.53% and 25.00%, respectively). Most of the responders had obtained Bachelor of Pharmacy (40 (31.25%)) and Doctor of Pharmacy degree (33 (25.78%)) and the majority of the pharmacists (112 (87.50%)) were not accredited by the Board of Pharmaceutical Specialty. The average score of the administration element of pharmacist intervention documentation was 3.68 (73.66%). Policies and procedures of pharmacist intervention documentation obtained the highest score (4.13 (82.6%)) followed by the quality management (3.78 (75.60%)) and education with training (3.76 (75.20%)). Adverse drug reactions (92.86%) and medication errors (91.19%) were most of the recorded type of documentation and poisoning information inquiries (65.62%) and medication reconciliation (80.31%) were the least type of documentation, with an average 54.66% documented electronically. Conclusion: The pharmacist intervention documentation was found to be acceptable in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The half of pharmacist intervention documentations was an electronic only. In the future, we recommend to improve the system and correct barriers related issues. This will enhance the process of documentation and explore the impact and role of the pharmacist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Objectives: To explore the practice and perceptions of pharmacist intervention documentation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methods: This is a 4-month cross-sectional self-administered survey of documentation of pharmacist intervention. The study consisted of two parts: the first part collected demographic information and the second part comprised of a questionnaire with a total of 18 questions. There were domains: pharmacist intervention documentation elements, documentation of clinical impact and cost avoidance, the perception of pharmacist intervention and the barrier of pharmacist intervention documentation. All kinds of pharmacist professionals were included in the survey. We used 5-point Likert response scale system to obtain responses. There were open and close-ended questions. The survey was distributed in an electronic format through the social media (WhatsApp and others) to more than 1000 pharmacist professionals across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The data were obtained through the Survey Monkey system. Results: A total of 128 pharmacists responded to the questionnaire. Of them, 106 (82.81%) were Saudi and 22 (17.19%) were non-Saudi pharmacists. Majority of the responders were in the age group of 25-34 years and 35-44 years (44.53% and 25.00%, respectively). Most of the responders had obtained their Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy degree (40 (31.25%)) and Diploma in Pharmacy (33 (25.78%)) with the majority of pharmacists (112 (87.50%)) not having accreditation for the Board of Pharmaceutical Specialty. Most of the pharmacist-reported intervention items was for brief description of the intervention (94.49 %), date of intervention (93.75%) and pharmacist's name/identification (93.70%), whereas least reported items was the effect of cost-saving (45.57%), time spent on providing intervention (51.61%) and drug therapeutic classification (65.73%). Most of the documentation of clinical impact and cost avoidance were related to the general pharmacist intervention (75.78%), adverse drug reaction (72.66%) and drug quality reporting (72.22%). Most of the barriers that prevent documentation of pharmacist intervention was lack of time (98 (76.56%)) followed by the statement "there is no system for pharmacist intervention" (43 (33.59%)) and "the analysis of pharmacist intervention does not exist" (41 (32.03%)). Conclusion: Half of the responder's showed compliance with the practice of pharmacist intervention documentation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The clinical impact and cost avoidance impact of the pharmacist does not adhere to the documentation with half of the responders. The electronic documentations of pharmacist intervention presented with half of the responders. We recommend to remove the barriers and encourage the pharmacist to carry out documentation. This will improve the system and will improve the clinical and economic benefit of the pharmacist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.