A Comparative Study On Patient Safety Culture For Pharmacists In Japan

Abstract

A23the theoretical framework to guide the focus group discussions. Each session was audio-recorded, transcribed, and participant responses were analyzed for qualitative content. Results: Two, 60 minute focus groups (Total N= 12) were conducted. Time constraints and privacy issues presented as major themes in the discussions. Regarding advantages/disadvantages, participants emphasized the importance of counseling for the discussion of potential drug interactions and side effects of their medications and felt that their doctor would approve of them speaking with a pharmacist about their medications. However, both patient and pharmacist' time constraints presented as a barrier to counseling. The majority of participants also stated that they would receive counseling more readily if it were provided in a more private environment. Only one participant was aware of MTM services and medication counseling requirements by law, however the majority stated that if they were aware of this mandate they would more readily accept pharmacist provided counseling. ConClusions: The identification of barriers to pharmacist provided counseling, specifically privacy and time limitations, may be beneficial for creating specific interventions that would increase patients' intentions to receive pharmacist provided counseling.

Do pharmacists have the most potential for patient safety in Japan? Learning from a 2010 nationwide survey

“…These results suggested that pharmacists might be more highly concerned with PS in Japan. [14] According to our original article, by using Lag time, which is the difference between the date of an incidence and the date on which it is reported, we could establish that Lag time for physicians was longer than that for nurses at Kyoto University Hospital in Japan. Likewise, Lag time for physicians was longer than that for non-MDs at Brigham and Women's Hospital in the United States.…”

“…Our crosssectional survey was conducted between December 2010 and May 2011. As PS performance is more active at larger hospitals, [14] of the 669 responding hospitals, the data from 42 hospitals did not include the necessary variables for this study. Therefore, they were excluded.…”