Methods  A survey tool was developed based on previous research, validated to ensure reliability and accuracy, and administered to approximately 70 nurses on the surgery wards. Key findings  Response rates for the pre and post surveys were 75% and 67% respectively. Nurses indicated that the quality of pharmacy service improved significantly from pre to post survey (85% versus 95%; P < 0.0001). There was a statistically significant

increase in positive responses to seven out of eight statements such as accessibility of pharmacists, timely responses to drug-related questions, and timely delivery of unit doses and intravenous admixtures. PI3K inhibitor Almost all statements about nursing staff expectations showed increases in agreement. At least 85% of nurses indicated their expectations had been met or exceeded for all but one clinical pharmacy service. A higher proportion of nurses in the post survey felt that clinical pharmacists positively impact on their roles and responsibilities as a nurse. Comments from nurses indicated enthusiastic support for clinical pharmacy services. Conclusions  A survey tool to assess the quality of pharmacy services in the hospital setting has

been developed, validated, and distributed. A high level of nurses’ satisfaction with the provision of new clinical pharmacy services on general surgery/gastrointestinal surgery wards was demonstrated. Nursing staff were more aware of the responsibilities NVP-BKM120 of clinical pharmacists and how the clinical pharmacist role could assist them in their own nursing practice. The survey may be useful for other wards and other institutions to measure satisfaction with pharmacy

services. “
“Pharmacists working collaboratively with general practitioners (GPs) in primary-care settings can improve patient outcomes; however, there are challenges to the implementation of collaborative services. A possible solution is the co-location of pharmacists within general practice clinics. To elicit the views of GPs and pharmacists on the integration of pharmacists into general practice in see more Australia. Semi-structured, individual interviews with a sample of 11 GPs and 16 pharmacists. Four major themes emerged: the current GP–pharmacist relationship; the role of the general practice pharmacist; the pros and cons of integration; and the barriers to and facilitators for integration. Most participants had experienced positive inter-professional relationships, though there were limitations in the collaborative services currently provided. Various methods of integration were discussed, including the co-location of pharmacists within practices. The potential roles for practice pharmacists were deemed to be multifaceted and in some cases allowed for role expansion.