Mystery shopping not all bad
Pharmacists in general have in the past given mystery shopping the thumbs down and so, in particular, has The Pharmaceutical Journal. For well over 10 years, “mystery shopping” or “covert observation” has been dismissed as unethical and bad science with little validity in research into pharmacy practice.
The debate has been fuelled along the way by reports from Which? — most
recently in February this year — which has sent actors into pharmacies
to test the wits of staff at all levels in providing appropriate advice
for a number of problems. This technique was derided by The Journal in
1988 as “the agent provocateur type of research” (PJ, 26
March 1988, p395) on various grounds including, for example, the fact
that the body language of actor-researchers would not send the same signals
as the body language of genuine patients. This, it has been argued, is
why pharmacists and their staff do not necessarily give the actor-researchers
the best advice.
However, the retail environment has moved on in the past decade, and
it is time to look once again at the value of conducting this type of
research. In an article published this week (p615, PDF (65K)),
Jill Jesson, lecturer in public management and sociology at Aston University,
argues that there
may be strengths to the technique, although she recognises its limitations.
The main limitations lie in the ethical arena. For the findings of mystery
shoppers to be accepted as robust, individuals visited by the shoppers
must be warned in advance that they could be the subject of such research
and must also give their consent to participate. Secondly, the difficulties
of using actors, who pass off themselves, and their signs and symptoms,
as real when they are pretending, need to be addressed.
Nevertheless, although it is not desirable to extrapolate the findings
of a handful of researchers (as conducted by Which?) to the whole profession,
it can be argued that the technique is useful in determining shortcomings
in service delivery by individuals. When staff are warned that their
performance will be monitored by mystery shoppers, as part of training,
the findings can be used to develop and motivate them. Indeed, as a means
of continuing professional development, mystery shopping is now well
established in pharmacy in Australia and is also used in New Zealand
and parts of the US.
There is little point, therefore, in dismissing the findings of mystery
shoppers out of hand. They are now so widely used in public services
and the commercial sectors in the UK that it can only be a matter of
time before they play a part in professional pharmacy development as
well.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal