Perceptions and current practices of community pharmacists regarding antimicrobial stewardship in Tasmania

Tasneem Rizvi, Angus Thompson, Mackenzie Williams, Syed Tabish Razi Zaidi

Background Despite increasing interest in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), little is known about the related practices and perceptions of community pharmacists. Objective To develop and validate a questionnaire to measure the current practices of, and barriers to community pharmacists' participation in AMS. Setting Community pharmacists in Tasmania, Australia. Method A questionnaire to explore AMS knowledge, current practices and perceptions of community pharmacists was developed. It was designed after rigorous literature review, expert opinion, and feedback from a group of community pharmacists. A convenience sample of 140 Tasmanian community pharmacists was used for this study. Cronbach's alpha and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used for reliability and validity. The questionnaire was hosted online, a link to which was sent by invitation e-mails, fax and post to community pharmacists in Tasmania, Australia. Main outcome measure Current AMS practices, perceived importance, barriers and facilitators of AMS. Results Eighty-five pharmacists responded to the survey yielding a response rate of 61%. EFA identified one factor solution for each of three perceptions scales and showed acceptable reliability. The Cronbach's alpha of perceived importance-understanding was 0.699, perceived importance-motivating was 0.734, perceived support from GPs was 0.890, operational barriers was 0.585, general facilitators was 0.615. Most pharmacists reported that they counselled patients on adverse effects (86%), drug interactions (94%), and allergies (96%). In contrast, less than half (43%) intervened with prescribers regarding antibiotic selection. Lack of training, lack of access to patients' records, limited interactions with general practitioners and absence of a reimbursement model were major barriers limiting community pharmacists' participation in AMS. Conclusion The questionnaire was of acceptable reliability and validity; a larger study will further contribute in its reliability and validity. Future studies utilising the questionnaire at national and international level may provide further insights into the determinants of community pharmacist's involvement in AMS.