OBJECTIVE: To preliminarily determine whether interactions between pharmacists and patients during drive-through service encounters differed significantly from those observed during walk-in service encounters at one community chain pharmacy. METHODS: Two student pharmacist observers timed interactions and recorded observations on a standardized form at the drive-through and walk-in windows. RESULTS: More than 200 encounters were documented at both the drive-through and walk-in windows. Patients using the two locations were similar in terms of gender, age, and proportion of mobility impaired. Of patients using the drive-through window, 35% had passengers in their car and 1% were smoking. Drive-through window encounters were more likely to involve at least one "more confidential" prescription compared with walk-in window encounters (17.7% vs. 11.3%). The proportion of patients with limited English proficiency was greater at the walk-in window compared with the drive-through window. Patients were acknowledged more frequently when they came to the walk-in window and accepted counseling more often when offered. While the length of total personnel time was greater, the proportion of time with the pharmacist was significantly less with patients at the drive-through window, indicating that drive-through interactions at this pharmacy are primarily with technicians. CONCLUSION: This pilot project suggests that the interaction between pharmacists and patients may be richer and lengthier when the walk-in window is used, particularly for patients with limited English proficiency.
OBJECTIVE: To preliminarily determine whether interactions between pharmacists and patients during drive-through service encounters differed significantly from those observed during walk-in service encounters at one community chain pharmacy. METHODS: Two student pharmacist observers timed interactions and recorded observations on a standardized form at the drive-through and walk-in windows. RESULTS: More than 200 encounters were documented at both the drive-through and walk-in windows. Patients using the two locations were similar in terms of gender, age, and proportion of mobility impaired. Of patients using the drive-through window, 35% had passengers in their car and 1% were smoking. Drive-through window encounters were more likely to involve at least one "more confidential" prescription compared with walk-in window encounters (17.7% vs. 11.3%). The proportion of patients with limited English proficiency was greater at the walk-in window compared with the drive-through window. Patients were acknowledged more frequently when they came to the walk-in window and accepted counseling more often when offered. While the length of total personnel time was greater, the proportion of time with the pharmacist was significantly less with patients at the drive-through window, indicating that drive-through interactions at this pharmacy are primarily with technicians. CONCLUSION: This pilot project suggests that the interaction between pharmacists and patients may be richer and lengthier when the walk-in window is used, particularly for patients with limited English proficiency.
Authors: Miriam A Mobley Smith; Cynthia J Boyle; Jan M Keresztes; Janet Liles; Linda Garrelts MacLean; Everett B McAllister; Janet Silvester; Nancy T Williams; Lynette R Bradley-Baker Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 2.047