Pharmacy Practice https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp <p><strong>Pharmacy Practice</strong> is a free full-text peer-reviewed journal with a scope on pharmacy practice. <strong>Pharmacy Practice</strong> is published quarterly. <strong>Pharmacy Practice <span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #ff0000;">does not charge and will never charge any publication fee or article processing charge (APC) to the author</span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #ff0000; text-decoration: underline;">s</span></span></strong>.</p> en-US <p>The authors hereby transfer, assign, or otherwise convey to Pharmacy Practice: (1) the right to grant permission to republish or reprint the stated material, in whole or in part, without a fee; (2) the right to print pr epublish copies for free distribution or sale; and (3) the right to republish the stated material in any format (electronic or printed). In addition, the undersigned affirms that the article described above has not previously been published, in whole or part, is not subject to copyright or other rights except by the author(s), and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere, except as communicated in writing to <strong>Pharmacy Practice</strong> with this document.</p> <p>Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Creative Commons Attribution License</a> (CC-BY-NC-ND) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.</p> <p><strong><span class="label">Author Self-Archiving Policy</span></strong></p> <p><span class="label"><strong>Pharmacy Practice</strong> permits and encourages authors to post and<strong> archive the final pdf</strong> of the articles submitted to the journal on personal websites or institutional repositories after publication, while providing bibliographic details that credit its publication in this journal.</span></p> journal@pharmacypractice.org (Fernando Fernandez-Llimos) journal@pharmacypractice.org (Administration) Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:06:49 +0000 OJS 3.1.2.1 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/1804 <p>Peer review provides the foundation for the scholarly publishing system. The conventional peer review system consists of using authors of articles as reviewers for other colleagues’ manuscripts in a collaborative-basis system. However, authors complain about a theoretical overwhelming number of invitations to peer review.&nbsp; It seems that authors feel that they are invited to review many more manuscripts than they should when taking into account their participation in the scholarly publishing system. The high number of scientific journals and the existence of predatory journals were reported as potential causes of this excessive number of reviews required. In this editorial, we demonstrate that the number of reviewers required to publish a given number of articles depends exclusively on the journals’ rejection rate and the number of reviewers intended per manuscript. Several initiatives to overcome the peer review crises are suggested.</p> Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Teresa M. Salgado, Fernanda S. Tonin Copyright (c) 2020 Pharmacy Practice and the Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/1804 Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:06:29 +0000 Differences between pharmacists’ perception of counseling and practice in the era of prescription drug misuse https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/1682 <p><strong>Objective</strong>: This study was conducted to assess pharmacists’ practices when counseling patients on their prescription medications, and their preferences for training.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong>: Five focus group discussions of community pharmacists (n=45, with seven to eleven participants in each group) were conducted in a major metropolitan city in the southern United States. Participants were recruited via email using a list of community pharmacists provided by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy.&nbsp; All focus group discussions were structured using a moderator guide consisting of both discrete and open-ended questions. Qualitative analysis software was used to analyze the data with a thematic analysis approach.</p> <p><strong>Results</strong>: The participants in this study had a high self-efficacy regarding their ability to counsel on both new and opioid prescriptions. Many pharmacists experienced the same barriers to counseling and agreed on the components of counseling. However, the themes that emerged showed that the participants exhibited only a partial understanding of the components of counseling. The themes that emerged in the thematic analysis were perceived confidence and discordant counseling practices, inadequate infrastructure, lack of comprehensive counseling, inconsistent use of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), and pharmacists’ desired training/assistance.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Conclusions</strong>: Community pharmacists are in a unique position to help combat the opioid crisis; however, there has been very little research on the pharmacist-patient interaction in this context. With policy changes, such as the PDMP mandate, going into effect across the country, it is important to capitalize on the potential community pharmacists have in ameliorating the opioid crisis in the United States.</p> J. Douglas Thornton, Precious Anyanwu, Vaishnavi Tata, Tamara Al Rawwad, Marc L. Fleming Copyright (c) 2020 Pharmacy Practice and the Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/1682 Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:43:22 +0000 A naturalistic observation study of medication counseling practices at retail chain pharmacies https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/1696 <p><strong>Objective</strong>: This study evaluated medication counseling procedures and trends at retail pharmacies in the Houston metropolitan area through a naturalistic observational study.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong>: A blinded cross-sectional observational study was conducted at retail pharmacies in the Houston metropolitan area. Data were collected by trained observers utilizing an observational log, to record various parameters that could have an impact on the duration of patient-pharmacist interaction in a naturalistic pharmacy practice setting. Additionally, indicators of counseling such as utilization of the counseling window and performance of show-and-tell were recorded. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, t-tests, Pearson correlations, ANOVAs, and multiple linear regressions.</p> <p><strong>Results</strong>: One hundred and sixty-five interactions between patients and pharmacy staff were recorded at 45 retail pharmacies from 7 retail pharmacy chains. The counseling window was utilized in only 3 (1.81%) out of 165 observations and the show-and-tell process was observed in just 1(0.61%) interaction during this study. Mean (SD) interaction time between patient and pharmacists [159.50 (84.50)] was not statistically different (p&gt;0.05) from the mean interaction time between patients and pharmacy technicians [139.30 (74.19)], irrespective of type of the retail chain observed. However, it was influenced by the number of patients waiting in queue. Patient wait time significantly differed by the time of the day the interaction was observed, weekends and weekdays had significantly different wait times and patient interaction times Multiple linear regression analyses indicated that, patient interaction time, pharmacy chain type, initial contact (pharmacist/technician), and time of the day, were significantly associated with patient wait time whereas patient wait time, pharmacy chain type, number of patients in queue, and number of pharmacy technician were significantly associated with interaction time.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions</strong>: Our study found that the key indicators of counseling including the use of the counseling window and the show-and-tell process were absent, suggesting lack of adequate pharmacists counseling. Further studies are needed to evaluate the validity of this conclusion and the role of pharmacy services and its value towards medication use and safety.</p> Soham D. Yande, Prajakta P. Masurkar, Suma Gopinathan, Sujit Sansgiry Copyright (c) 2020 Pharmacy Practice and the Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/1696 Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:04:42 +0000 Value of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis by enoxaparin with anti-factor Xa trough concentration monitoring in surgical care https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/1808 Seeba Zachariah, Maitha Al-Tamimi, Prasanna Vippadapu, Wessa Shenouda, Dixon Thomas Copyright (c) 2020 Pharmacy Practice and the Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/1808 Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:57:36 +0000