Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2016 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Boaventura, Thays Carneiro
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Lyra Júnior, Divaldo Pereira de |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal de Sergipe
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde
|
| Departamento: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://ri.ufs.br/handle/riufs/3792
|
Resumo: |
Objective: To describe the studies on the working process during the practice of pharmacist dispensing. Methods: Three systematic reviews the following steps were performed accordingly: (1) identification of studies in the following databases: PubMed / Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Lilacs, using the descriptors ''counseling'', ''dispensing'', ''community pharmacy services'',' ''pharmacies'' and ''pharmacists'' and its synonyms with different combinations; (2) evaluation studies, in which the title and summary were eligible, according to the following inclusion criteria: studies were conducted in community pharmacies, studies on the working process in the practice of pharmaceutical dispensing and articles published in English, Portuguese or Spanish. (3) Full Text evaluation according to the following inclusion criteria: - 1st Systematic Review: The aim of this review was to understand the process of work and the quality indicators used in the Dispensation. Thus, we had the following inclusion criteria: studies with quality indicators in the dispensing work process; - 2nd Systematic Review: this review aimed to identify the questions and instructions given by the pharmacist and propose a model of practice for dispensing. Therefore, he presented as specific inclusion criteria: studies that have questions and/ or guidelines in the work process in the practice of pharmaceutical dispensing; - 3rd Systematic Review: whose objective was to evaluate the studies documenting the work process in the practice of pharmaceutical dispensing. Therefore, we had the specific inclusion criteria: studies that addressed the documentation of the work process in the practice of pharmaceutical dispensing. When there were differences between the two evaluators, a third evaluator examined and judged discrepancies in each systematic review. The databases were reviewed until September 02, 2015. Results: - In the first systematic review included 60 articles. The studies showed high heterogeneity indicating the lack of standardization of the practice of pharmaceutical dispensing work process. It was found that the quality of the tools used to evaluate the dispensing work process was not often assessed. Nine quality indicators in practice dispensing work process were found. - In the second systematic review articles 65 were included, with most studies used the method of Simulated patient, with most patients showing a passive behavior. by were listed and quantified the most common questions and instructions given pharmacists as: identification and clinical condition of the patient, indication, dose and effect of the drug, allergy, duration of treatment, adverse effects, drug interactions, non-pharmacological treatments and referral to the doctor. - In the third systematic review were included 26 articles. Few studies have addressed the documentation as part of the dispensing work process and most documented by non-computerized instruments. Conclusion: Studies on pharmaceutical dispensing should be standardized, which will facilitate the comparison of results and measure the working process of this service. Protocols, algorithms and practical documentation are needed to guide, standardize the work process of dispensing and measuring the impact of interventions by community pharmacists in patient care. |
