Resumen de Assessment of community pharmacists’ communication and comfor t levels when interacting with D eaf and hard of hearing patients
Elizabeth J Hong, Sabrina A. Jacob, Amutha Ramadas, Pei K Goh, Uma D. Palanisamy
Background : Deaf and hard of hearing patients who use sign language face considerable communication barriers while accessing pharmacy services. Low comfort - levels bet ween community pharmacists and D eaf and hard of hearing patients result in p oor interactions and increase patient safety risks.
Objective : 1) To examine the way commu nity pharmacists interact with D eaf and hard of hearing patients in Malaysia, and their level of comfort in such interactions. 2) To examine how comfort - levels vary b y the preferred communication methods, resources and employer support.
Methods : This cross - sectional study was conducted among registered community pharmacists practicing in Malaysia. Questionnaire items included comfort - levels of community pha rmacists whe n interacting with D eaf and hard of hearing patients, used and preferred communication methods, necessary resources, and perceived employer’s level of support. Based on the list of registered pharma cies, the questionnaire with a pre - paid return envelope wa s mailed out while pharmacies close to the university were approached in person. This questionnaire was distributed online using Google Form. Comparisons between comfort - levels and study parameters were analyzed using independent t - tests and ANOVA.
Results : A total of 297 community pharmacists responded (response rate 29.2%). Higher comfort - levels were reported in those who had received between 1 to 5 prescriptions as compared to those who did not receive p rescriptions from D eaf and hard of hearing patients (MD= - 0.257, SD=0.104, p= 0 .042). More than 80% used written information and only 3.4% had used the services of a qualified sign language interpreter throughout their community pharmacist career. Significantly lower comfort - levels (p= 0 .0004) were reported in community pharmacists who perceived training in sign language a s a necessity to interact with D eaf and hard of hearing patients (M=3.6, SD=0.9) versus those who were not interested in sign language training (M=3.8, SD= 0.6).
Conclusions : The results sugg est that community pharmacists were neither extremely comfortable no r averse when interacting with D eaf and hard of hearing patients. The lack of significant findings in terms of comfort - levels may indicate other potential drivers for their choice of commu nicatio n method when interacting with D eaf and hard of hearing patients.
