Int J Pharm Pract 2001:9:9-14
University of Melbourne, Department of Medicine (Dermatology), St Vincent’s Hospital, 41 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy 3065, Victoria, Australia Anne Plunkett, BN, MPH, research officer Robin Marks, MBBS, MPH, professor of dermatology Monash University, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Victorian College of Pharmacy, Australia Phyllis Lau, BPharm, postgraduate research student Kay Stewart, BPharm, PhD, lecturer in pharmacy practice
Correspondence: Professor Marks renniema@svhm.org.au
Original Papers
Skin conditions in the pharmacy: consumer satisfaction and economic considerations
ANNE PLUNKETT, PHYLLIS LAU, KAY STEWART and ROBIN MARKS
Objective — To evaluate whether consumers were satisfied with advice about skin conditions received from community pharmacists in Victoria, Australia, and to estimate costs and potential savings to the consumer and government associated with managing these conditions in the pharmacy.Methods — In 1997-1998, a consumer survey on costs and satisfaction was carried out in Victoria as part of a statewide education programme with community pharmacists. Pharmacists recorded details of dermatological consultations involving over-the-counter (OTC) products, and recruited pharmacy consumers for follow-up by a member of the research team.
Results — Consumer consultations were recorded at 126 pharmacies. One hundred and five (58.0 per cent) of the 181 consumers who were subsequently interviewed reported being very satisfied with their consultation. One hundred and thirty-two (73.0 per cent) spent up to 10 minutes consulting the pharmacist and 78 (43.1 per cent) spent between $A5 (£1.95) and $A10 on OTC products. A total of 37 consumers (20.4 per cent) consulted a medical practitioner on the advice of their pharmacist. While most of the 37 consumers spent under $A10 in the pharmacy, if the cost of medical consultation and the subsidised nature of items supplied on medical prescription were taken into account, the costs to the consumer and government would have been greater. The direct costs for a pharmacist consultation on the management of skin conditions were lower than the expected direct costs associated with a general practitioner (GP) consultation.
Conclusion — Consumers were satisfied with the advice and treatment they received from the pharmacist on the management of skin conditions. Pharmacists' advice also appeared to be cost-effective for both the consumer and government. Community pharmacists appear to be satisfactory primary providers of advice and treatment for people with minor skin conditions.