Objectives: This study aims at declaring the Hand Hygiene (HH) and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) policy and procedures as a new initiative for Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) for the pharmacy services in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This is a narrative review of pharmacy infection control. A literature search was performed using various databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar, about specific topics related to infection control in pharmacy practice. The search period was from the 1960s to October 2021. The terms searched were in English and included narrative review, systemic review, meta-analysis, and guidelines. terms Policies and procedures for the last 10 years across all hospitals or community pharmacy services were included in the search terms. The research team of the pharmacy infection control consist of various expert members including clinical pharmacists, community pharmacists, and infection control specialists. One member drafted the policy. Some member reviewed the draft policy and corrected it. The other member, who is an infection control specialist, revised last draft. The topic emphasizes on the adoption and practices of the policies and procedures on hand hygiene (HH) and personal protective equipment (PPE) for the pharmacy infection prevention and control. Results: The hand hygiene and personal protective equipment policy of pharmacy infection prevention control consist of various items, including steps of hand hygiene and proper donning and doffing sequences of the PPE during pharmacy performances. Conclusion:The policies and procedures related to hand hygiene and personal protective equipment are the foundations of pharmacy infection control and control. Implementation and practices of HH and PPE aims at the prevention and control Healthcare wirh ephazaized on pharmacy staff related Infections, which in lieu, improve patient safety Therefore, hand hygiene and personal protective equipment policy is recommended for all pharmacy settings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Objectives:To declare reliability and validity of EBM Resources Knowledge used for Pharmacy Research Survey in Saudi Arabia. Methods: It is a cross-section survey developed by the authors and the researcher team. It's based on the updated literature, national and international accreditation standards organizations. The internal consistency reliability through, inter-rater reliability, item-item coloration, item-total coloration, split half reliability (Gutmann's λ6) and McDonald's ω, Cronbach alpha. The validity contained of face content validity, construct validity through exploratory factorial analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. All analysis had been done through Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS), Statistical Package of Social Sciences-Analysis of Moment Structures (SPSS-Amos) and Jeffrey's Amazing Statistics Program (JASP). Results: A total of 209 pharmacists responded. The majority of responders were Saudi 185 (88.52%). The responders were males 108 (61.77%) and females 101 (48.33%). The three tests had been done with reliability of 16 questions. The completed number of responders (200) (mean ± SD) was 3.179 ± 0.436, McDonald's ω, Cronbach alpha and Gutmann's λ6 were 0.967, 0.966 and 0.976, respectively, inter-item coloration was 0.719, the item-total coloration >0.7, McDonald's ω, Cronbach alpha and Gutmann's λ6 value if deleted was >0.97. By using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy was 0.941 and Bartlett's test of sphericity with approximate chi-square was <0.001. The commonalities extraction for all questions were >0.58, the related components were one of the rotated component matrix >0.59 of all 16 questions in component 1 as suggested. They were established by confirmatory with statistically significant (p<0.001) of the factor model, by factor analysis, by scree plot, pathway analysis and fit with the original survey. The confirmatory factor index was 0.862, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.841, Goodness of fit index (GFI) was 0.906 and Expected cross validation index (ECVI) was 3.270. The collinearity of 16 questions was the auto-correlation was 0.066 with not statically significant (p=0.317). The majority of 16 questions had Enjuone value close to number 1, while 3 questions only had condition index more than 30. All of the 16 questions had The Variance inflation factor (VIF) less than 10 and had tolerance more than 0.1. Conclusion: The pharmacist survey knowledge of evidence-based medicine resources for pharmacy practice and distributed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had high reliability and validity scale level. The pharmacy researcher can utilized surveys with an adequate number of sample sizes with further research in Saudi Arabia.

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.