Rayf Abulezz1,2,3, Sahal Khoshhal1,2,3. 1. Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. 2. King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 3. King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of Staff Knowledge Enhancement Program (SKEP) among staff, in improving staff knowledge, and awareness of policies and procedures. Methods: After 1 year of implementing SKEP, a survey was conducted among pharmacy staff that participated in SKEP during June 2019 (n = 38). The survey included 7 questions and the answers were on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The investigators also obtained the average monthly time used to solve SKEP test, and the number of therapeutic intervention documentations (TID). Results: Sixty-one percent of the pharmacists and 80% of the technicians were satisfied with the educational content of SKEP; 35% of pharmacists and 93% of technicians felt that their learning needs were met with the SKEP; 83% of pharmacists and 93 % of technicians found SKEP is an effective tool in improving their knowledge; 48% of pharmacists and 34% of technicians felt that SKEP made staff evaluations fair; 38% of pharmacists felt that SKEP is a burden and takes a lot from their free time, while 40% of technicians did not have this feeling; 83% of pharmacist and 93% of the technicians found that the knowledge gained from SKEP applicable in their daily practice; 73% and 74% of the pharmacists and technicians who completed the survey felt that their familiarity with policies and procedures improved after SKEP respectively. The total number of TID increased by 30% and the average duration for the test was 5 hours/month and 68 minutes/month per pharmacist and technician respectively. Conclusion: SKEP is innovative tool which may enhance the knowledge and policy awareness among pharmacy staff.
Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of Staff Knowledge Enhancement Program (SKEP) among staff, in improving staff knowledge, and awareness of policies and procedures. Methods: After 1 year of implementing SKEP, a survey was conducted among pharmacy staff that participated in SKEP during June 2019 (n = 38). The survey included 7 questions and the answers were on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The investigators also obtained the average monthly time used to solve SKEP test, and the number of therapeutic intervention documentations (TID). Results: Sixty-one percent of the pharmacists and 80% of the technicians were satisfied with the educational content of SKEP; 35% of pharmacists and 93% of technicians felt that their learning needs were met with the SKEP; 83% of pharmacists and 93 % of technicians found SKEP is an effective tool in improving their knowledge; 48% of pharmacists and 34% of technicians felt that SKEP made staff evaluations fair; 38% of pharmacists felt that SKEP is a burden and takes a lot from their free time, while 40% of technicians did not have this feeling; 83% of pharmacist and 93% of the technicians found that the knowledge gained from SKEP applicable in their daily practice; 73% and 74% of the pharmacists and technicians who completed the survey felt that their familiarity with policies and procedures improved after SKEP respectively. The total number of TID increased by 30% and the average duration for the test was 5 hours/month and 68 minutes/month per pharmacist and technician respectively. Conclusion: SKEP is innovative tool which may enhance the knowledge and policy awareness among pharmacy staff.