Japanese Journal
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)
ItohofetCommunityal.；Factors Hindering《 Original Article 》

Factors Hindering Collaboration between Hospital Pharmacists
and Community Pharmacists
Yoshimi Itoh1*, Shunji Yamaguchi2, Youhei Ikemoto3, Masahiro Hayashi4,
Yoshimitsu Shimamori1, Tsutomu Bandoh1
Differences in ways of thinking due to different professional affiliations of pharmacists (e.g.,community pharmacy vs. hospital pharmacy) and a gap in information needed for collaboration are
presumed to be the factors hindering optimal collaboration between hospital pharmacists and community
pharmacists (hereinafter referred to as “pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration”), although there have been
almost no reports on them so far. In this study, we conducted a questionnaire survey ofpharmacist-pharmacist collaboration on the basis of differences in professional affiliation. As an indicator,
we examined differences in pharmacists’ aspiration to be a generalist or a specialist, according todifferences in professional affiliation, i.e., whether they belong to community pharmacies or hospital
pharmacies.
The need for pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration was scored on a 5-point scale. The results revealedconsiderable differences in the extent of collaboration between hospital pharmacists and community
pharmacists, although both groups rated such collaboration as highly necessary. Pharmacists who accept
prescriptions provided by designated cancer care hospitals gave a significantly higher rating for the needfor pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration than pharmacists who do not accept prescriptions provided bydesignated cancer care hospitals. Comparisons of the generalist and specialist orientations of pharmacists
revealed that hospital pharmacists were significantly more generalist- or specialist-oriented thancommunity pharmacists. Furthermore, there appeared to be a gap in the information needed most byhospital pharmacists and community pharmacists engaging in pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration.
These findings suggest that differences in the focus of hospital pharmacists and community pharmacists
and a gap in information needed for collaboration are likely the factors that hinder pharmacist-pharmacist
collaboration.

Key words; pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration, hindering factors,
generalist orientation, specialist orientation
Received September 26, 2018; Accepted November 27, 2018
1 Department of Pharmaceutical Community Health Care, Hokkaido University of Science,2 Ain Holdings,Inc. ,3 Drug Department, Yubari City Clinic, 4 Pharmaceutical Department, Chitose City Hospital*Corresponding author: Yoshimi Itoh, Department of Pharmaceutical Community Health Care, Hokkaido University of
Science, 7-Jo 15-4-1 Maeda, Teine, Sapporo, Hokkaido 006-8585, Japan
Phone +81 11-676-8721
Fax +81 11-676-8666
E-mail: y_itoh@hus.ac.jp4343Itoh ofet al.；Factors
Japanese JournalCommunity Hindering
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)

1． Introduction

pharmacist. At the same time, they are called on
to serve as a generalist who can respond flexibly
betweento a wide range of situations or prescriptions at

continuum

long-term care facilities and others7). This

(hereinafter referred to as “pharmacist-pharmacist

situation applies to community pharmacists as

collaboration”) has been promoted in order towell.

improve safety of drug therapy and to meet thecertificationneeds of patients in home care, which has grownpharmacists, which is presumed to be one of thein demand, as well as in regular visits to hospitals

factors that hinder them from becoming afor outpatient cancer chemotherapy. However, as

specialized pharmacist. As mentioned above, theit stands, fully functional collaboration is rarely

roles of hospital pharmacists and community

achieved at medical institutions. In order topharmacists

provide patients with appropriate and safe

professional affiliation, and differences in ways

medical care, the need for mutual exchange, suchof thinking between the two groups are

as sharing of patient information, between

considered to be the most important factor that

hospital pharmacies and community pharmacies

hampers pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration8),9).

In

recentyears,

collaboration

pharmacists

acrossthecare

has been proposed1).

In

addition,isacquiringdifficult

vary

for

widelyadditional
community

accordingtoAccordingly, in this study, we conducted a

In the oral cancer chemotherapy setting2-5),

questionnaire survey to clarify differences inincludeways of thinking arising from the different

holding group trainings6), disclosing regimens on

professional affiliations of pharmacists based on

the internet, sharing dosage schedules by fax, andthe types of services rendered, for the purpose ofproviding patient information (e.g., laboratory

examining differences in awareness regarding

pharmacist-pharmacist

collaborations

2)data) necessary for patient education . Yet, in

pharmacist-pharmacist

collaboration

betweenactuality, such collaborations have hardly reachedhospital pharmacists and community pharmacists.

a satisfactory level. This suggests that it is not2.

simply due to the lack of sufficient knowledge orinformationthat

Methods

pharmacist-pharmacist

collaboration has failed to advance, but rather, aWenumber of underlying causes may exist.

conductedaself-administeredquestionnaire survey targeting hospital andIn particular, differences arising from thecommunity

different professional affiliations of pharmacists,

February

methods of collaboration, and discrepancies inpharmacists, the survey targeted those at 11

information focus between hospital pharmacists

hospitals that agreed to participate in the survey,

and community pharmacists, are presumed to befrom among designated cancer care hospitals andthe main causes.

local core cancer hospitals in all prefectures. In

pharmacists
2015.

In

the

from

January

case

of

to

hospital

Hospital pharmacists are required to performthe case of community pharmacists, those at four

the role of a specialist, for example, an oncology

pharmacy chains operating nationwide responded
44
44

Japanese Journal
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)
ItohofetCommunityal.；Factors Hindering

1. Attributes of pharmacists

to the survey. We did the request with thequestionnaire, but conducted a questionnaire in

Responses were obtained from 121 hospitalthe online because two companies recommended

pharmacists (56 males, 65 females) and 1,431

a questionnaire in the online. We also sent a

community pharmacists (676 males, 755 females).

self-administered questionnaire to pharmacists at

No difference in age composition was noted

the remaining two community pharmacies andbetween the two groups (Figure 1). The hospital

those at the 11 hospitals, and collected theirpharmacists were affiliated with such facilities as

responses. The questions sought to identify

designatedpharmacist-pharmacist collaboration in the oral

university hospitals (8%), and general hospitals

cancer chemotherapy setting, levels of awareness(multiple departments) (10%). The communityofpharmacists were affiliated with pharmacies that

the

need

collaboration,

for

and

pharmacist-pharmacist

informationneededcancercare

hospitals(82%),

mainly respond to the demands of generalforhospitals

pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration.

(multiple

clinics/medical

The collection rate was 92.4% for the hospital

departments)(46%),(33%),

municipal

offices

pharmacists. For the community pharmacists,

hospitals (9%), specialized hospitals (single

responses were collected from 47 pharmacists

department) (6%), regional core centers forfrom the two community pharmacies to whom wecancer therapy (i.e., designated cancer caresent the questionnaire, and the collection rate washospitals) (4%), and university hospitals (2%).

88.7%. As for the 1,387 respondents from the
2. Achievement of pharmacist-pharmacist

other two community pharmacies, as they
responded online, we were unable to calculate thecollaborationcollection rate.

Participants were asked to respond to thequestion,

Data are shown as means ± S.E. and statistical

“Do

you

engageinanalysis was performed using Mann-Whitney’s

pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration?” using the

U-test. Statistical significance was accepted at P

following 4-point scale: 1) Yes, 2) Sometimes, 3)< 0.05. P < 0.10 was considered2%7%there was a tendency.
The study was conductedupon receipt of confirmation
from

the

chairmanoftheuniversity ethics committee thatapplication for approval of thisstudy from the committee was
unnecessary.
3.

Results

6%3%

4% 1% 1% 1%
4%
9%

38%

34%

9%

15%
16%
23%
Hospital pharmacists

27%
Community pharmacists

23–24 years
25–29 years
30–34 years
35–39 years
40–44 years
45–49 years
50–54 years
55–59 years
60 years andolder
Figure 1. Age composition of hospital pharmacists and community pharmacists

45
45

Itoh ofet al.；Factors
Japanese JournalCommunity Hindering
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)

Not often, and 4) No. The responses collectedprescriptions provided by designated cancer carefrom hospital pharmacists working at designatedhospitals were asked to score using the following

cancer care hospitals and community pharmacists

5-point scale: 1) I very much think so, 2) I think

who accept prescriptions provided by designatedso, 3) Not sure, 4) I don’t really think so, and 5) I

cancer care hospitals, respectively, were as

don’t think so. The results showed that roughly

follows: 1) 26.0% and 46.0%, 2) 24.0% and

90% or more of respondents in both groups saw

22.0%, 3) 25.0% and 14.0%, and 4) 25.0% andthe need for pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration

18.0%. It was revealed that by combining those(Figure 2).
Moreover, with regard to the “need for

who chose 1) Yes and 2) Sometimes, roughly
70% of the community pharmacists were engaged

pharmacist-pharmacist

collaboration,”in pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration in the oral

participants scored using the following 5-point

cancer chemotherapy setting.

scale: 1) I very much think so (+2 points), 2) I
think so (+1 point), 3) Not sure (0 point), 4) I

Meanwhile, among the hospital pharmacists,
pharmacist-pharmacist

don’t really think so (-1 point), and 5) I don’tcollaboration in the said setting and who selected

think so (-2 points). Then, the responses of1) and 2) combined accounted for 52.1%,

hospital pharmacists working at designated

whereas among the community pharmacists, thecancer care hospitals and those working at otherpercentage was no more than 11.5%.

hospitals

thoseengagedinwerecompared.

Nosignificant

differences were found with regard to the needfor collaboration (Figure 3A). On the other hand,

3. Need for pharmacist-pharmacist collaborationWith

regard

to

the

“need

the need for pharmacist-pharmacist collaborationforpharmacist-pharmacist collaboration,” hospitalwassignificantly

higherfor

community

pharmacists working at designated cancer carepharmacists who accept prescriptions provided

hospitals and community pharmacists who accept

by designated cancer care hospitals than for those

Hospital pharmacists
working at designated cancer
care hospitals
Community pharmacists
accepting prescriptions fromdesignated cancer care
hospitals
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

I very much think so
I think so
Not sure
I don't really think so
I don't think so
Figure 2. Responses to the Question: “Do you think that pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration is necessary?”
46
46

Japanese Journal
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)
ItohofetCommunityal.；Factors Hindering4) Not really (-1 point), and 5) No (-2 points).

who do not (Figure 3B).

The results showed that hospital pharmacists
had significantly higher scores for both generalist

4. Generalist and specialist orientations

and specialist orientations than community

With regard to generalist and specialist

pharmacists (Figures 4A and 4B).

orientations, both hospital pharmacists andFurthermore, we surveyed the generalist andon the following 5-point scale, and scores were

specialist orientations of hospital pharmacists

compared by orientation: 1) Yes, very much (+2

who work at designated cancer care hospitals andpoints), 2) Yes (+1 point), 3) Not sure (0 point),

those who work at other hospitals, and ofA) Hospital pharmacistsB) Community pharmacists

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.5

Score

Score

community pharmacists rated their orientations

1.0
0.5

*

1.0
0.5

0.0

0.0

designatedcancer care
hospitals

other hospitals

acceptingprescriptions fromdesignated cancer
care hospitals

other prescribers

Figure 3. Comparison of need for pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration by place of employment
A) Hospital pharmacists working at designated cancer care hospitals and those working at other hospitals
B) Community pharmacists accepting prescriptions from designated cancer care hospitals and other prescribers
Mean ± S.E., * : P < 0.05

A) Generalist orientationB) Specialist orientation

1.0

1.0

*

0.8

Score

Score

0.8
0.6
0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

Hospital
pharmacists

Community
pharmacists*

0.6

Hospital
pharmacists

Community
pharmacists

Figure 4. Differences in generalist and specialist orientations between hospital pharmacists
and community pharmacists
Mean ± S.E., * : P < 0.054747

Itoh ofet al.；Factors
Japanese JournalCommunity Hindering
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)

Table 1. Comparison of generalist and specialist orientations by affiliation of hospital pharmacists
Designated cancer
care hospitals
99
1.04 ± 0.67
0.88 ± 0.70

Affiliation of hospital pharmacists
Number of pharmacists
Generalist orientation
Specialist orientation

Other hospitals

Significant difference

22
0.86 ± 0.57
1.00 ± 0.63

―
N.S.
N.S.

Mean ± S.E., N.S. : not significant

Table 2. Comparison of generalist and specialist orientations according to difference in the prescriberof prescriptions accepted by community pharmacists
Prescriber of prescriptions acceptedby community pharmacist
Number of pharmacists
Generalist orientation
Specialist orientation

Designated cancer
care hospitals
50
0.88 ± 0.72
0.66 ± 0.82

Other prescribers

Significant difference

1,381
0.69 ± 0.79
0.48 ± 0.87―*+

Mean ± S.E., * : P < 0.05, + : P < 0.10

designated cancer care hospitals.

community pharmacists who accept prescriptions
provided by designated cancer care hospitals andMoreover, with regard to generalist andthose who accept prescriptions provided by otherspecialist orientations, analysis by age groupprescribers.

revealed that hospital pharmacists in the “35–39
year old” and “40–44 year old” age groups had

No significant differences were observed inbothgeneralistandspecialistsignificantly

orientations

higherscoresforgeneralist

between hospital pharmacists who work at

orientation than community pharmacists in thedesignated cancer care hospitals and those whosame age groups (Figure 5A). Similarly, hospitalwork at other hospitals (Table 1).

pharmacists in the “35–39 year old” age group

On the other hand, significant differences or

had a significantly higher score for specialist

tendency were observed in both generalist andorientation than community pharmacists in thespecialist

same age group (Figure 5B).

orientations

betweenpharmacists

whoprescriptions

provided

community

acceptA) Generalist orientation

bydesignated cancer care hospitals*

1.5B) Specialist orientation

*

*

1.5

and those who accept prescriptions
otherprescribers(Table 2).

1.0

0.5

No significant differences wereobserved in both generalist andspecialist

1.0

Score

by

Score

providedorientations

between

0.5

0.0

0.0

25‐29

30‐34 35‐39 40‐44 45‐49

50‐54

Age (years)

hospital pharmacists working at

Hospital pharmacists

25‐29

30‐34 35‐39 40‐44 45‐49

50‐54

Age (years)
Community pharmacists

designated cancer care hospitals
and community pharmacists who
accept prescriptions provided by

Figure 5. Stratified analysis by age group of generalist and specialist
orientations of hospital pharmacists and community pharmacists
Mean ± S.E., * : P < 0.0548
48

Japanese Journal
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)
ItohofetCommunityal.；Factors Hindering
Table 3. Information needed most for pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration between hospital pharmacists
who work at designated cancer care hospitals and community pharmacists who accept
prescriptions provided by designated cancer care hospitals

1

Hospital pharmacists working at designatedcancer care hospitals
Regimens
30.4%

2

Name of disease

3
4
5
6
7
8

19.6%

Contents of patient education at thepharmacy
Handling of adverse drug reactions
Symptoms of adverse drug reactions
Whether patients are informed or not
Laboratory data
Other

Community pharmacists who accept prescriptions
provided by designated cancer care hospitals
Regimens
30.6%
Contents of patient education at the
26.5%
hospital

13.0%

Contents of treatment at the hospital

16.3%

12.0%
9.8%
7.6%
6.5%
1.1%

Handling of adverse drug reactions
Name of disease
Symptoms of adverse drug reactions
Whether patients are informed or not
Laboratory data

8.2%
6.1%
6.1%
6.1%
0.0%

disease” (Table 3).

5. Information needed for pharmacist-pharmacist
collaboration

4. Discussion

We also examined the information needed
most for pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration.
For hospital pharmacists working at designatedWe conducted a survey where hospitalcancer care hospitals, the following 8 items were

pharmacists and part of community pharmacists

considered: 1) name of disease, 2) laboratory data

were asked to fill out a self-administered3) regimen, 4) whether patients are informed orquestionnaire and another part of community

not, 5) symptoms of adverse drug reactions, 6)

pharmacists were asked to fill out an online

handling of adverse drug reactions, 7) contents ofself-administered questionnaire. As the questions

patient education at the pharmacy, and 8) other.

in the questionnaire and its online counterpart

For

acceptwere the same and the pharmacist had to answer

prescriptions provided by designated cancer carethem in person, we assumed that there were no

hospitals, the following 8 items were considered:differences in the results of the two methods.

community

pharmacists

who1) name of disease, 2) laboratory data, 3) regimen,With

regard

to

the

need

for

collaboration,a4) whether patients are informed or not, 5)

pharmacist-pharmacist

symptoms of adverse drug reactions, 6) handlingsignificant difference was observed betweenof adverse drug reactions, 7) contents of patientcommunity pharmacists who accept prescriptions

education at the hospital, and 8) contents ofprovided by designated cancer care hospitals andtreatment at the hospital. The results revealed athose who accept prescriptions provided by othergap between hospital pharmacists and community

prescribers. In addition, with regard to generalist

pharmacists regarding the information needed

andmost for pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration. Of

pharmacists who accept prescriptions provided

note were the significant differences in theby designated cancer care hospitals had higher

percentages of “contents of patient education atscores than community pharmacists who accept

the hospital (or pharmacy) ” and “name ofprescriptions provided by other prescribers. Also,49
49

specialist

orientations,communityItoh ofet al.；Factors
Japanese JournalCommunity Hindering
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)

no significant differences were observed in both

is likely related to the significant difference ingeneralist and specialist orientations between

generalist

hospital pharmacists working at designatedcompared to community pharmacists.

andspecialist

orientations,ascancer care hospitals and community pharmacists

The difference in the volume of clinical work is

who accept prescriptions provided by designatedone of the possible reasons why hospitalcancer care hospitals. As community pharmacists

pharmacists have higher scores for generalist andwho accept prescriptions provided by designatedspecialist

cancer care hospitals give drug administration

pharmacists. The volume of clinical work reflects

guidance to cancer patients and check adverse

differences in the acquired qualification of

drug reactions, they are required to have an

specialized pharmacists. At hospitals, pharmacists

accurate understanding of the background leading

are required to engage actively in clinical work,

to diagnosis as well as the treatment course andand this may increase opportunities for them tothe patient’s knowledge of medication. Therefore,show

they are likely to be highly aware of the need for

Moreover, unlike hospital pharmacists who havepharmacist-pharmacist collaboration, and at thebeensame time, have higher generalist and specialist

hospitalized patients, community pharmacists

orientations than community pharmacists whoface difficulty in grasping the contents of patient

accepteducationprescriptions

provided

by

other

orientations

motivation
involved

at

than

for
in

community

continued

thehospitals

learning.

chemotherapy

and

the

of

treatment

modalities due to the recent increase in theprescribers.

numberWe scored the level of generalist and specialistof

patients

undergoingoutpatientorientations and compared them by pharmacists’chemotherapy. In addition, patient medical

professional affiliation, i.e., hospital pharmacy vs.

information is lacking. Under such circumstances,

community pharmacy. We found that hospital

they feel that they are not acquiring enoughpharmacists had significantly higher scores forknowledge about drug therapy or medication.

both generalist and specialist orientations thanThis may have influenced the generalist andcommunity pharmacists. Tanaka et al.9) reported

specialist orientations of community pharmacists

that hospital pharmacists who do more clinicalin the present study. Compared with community

work have higher team medical care related work

pharmacists, hospital pharmacists have more time

execution rates than those who do less clinicalto interact with patients and can acquire a morework, and are also more actively engaged in new

accurate

services.

backgroundfromphysicians

electronic

medicalrecords.

Ascommunicate

hospital
activelypharmacists

with

other

can

medicalunderstanding

of

the

treatmentorthrough

Accordingly,

professionals in order to improve patient QOL

differences in the environment related to different

and increase the effects of drug therapy, they areprofessional affiliations may have contributed torequired to pursue self-improvement in order totheir motivation and orientations.

medication

Together with doctors, hospital pharmacists

management and guidance in hospital wards. This

have access to new information when hospitalenhanceservices

pertaining

to

50
50

Japanese Journal
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)
ItohofetCommunityal.；Factors Hindering

wards give drug administration guidance. As

13.0% of hospital pharmacists working at

opposed to this, community pharmacists lackdesignated cancer care hospitals indicated that

information on patients’ treatment and according“contents of patient education at the hospital (orto some reports, because of their lack ofpharmacy)” is needed. The higher percentage isknowledge of, and experience in, chemotherapy,

attributable

doctors expect little from them11),12). The

pharmacists who accept prescriptions provided

promotion

pharmacist-pharmacist

by designated cancer care hospitals need tocollaboration may lead to smoother collaboration

provide care to patients after discharge. Moreover,between community pharmacists and other

19.6% of hospital pharmacists working at

medical professionals, and by gaining an

designated cancer care hospitals and 6.1% of

understanding of the contents of pharmacists’community pharmacists who accept prescriptions

services, we anticipate that the potential ofprovided by designated cancer care hospitals

community pharmacists can be broadened further.

indicated that “name of disease” is needed. Given

Furthermore, hospital pharmacists in the “35-the fact that hospital pharmacists working at

to 39-year-old” and “40- to 44-year-old” agedesignated cancer care hospitals check thegroups had significantly higher scores for

regimen, they need to know the name of thegeneralist

community

disease and the details, including the site or stage

pharmacists in the same age groups. In addition,of cancer. Meanwhile, community pharmacists

hospital pharmacists in the “35- to 39-year-old”

who accept prescriptions provided by designated

age group had significantly higher scores forcancer care hospitals deal with patients who are

specialist

community

treated according to a regimen; thus, they attach

pharmacists in the same age group. This can beimportance to the regimen and the contents of

attributed to the fact that hospital pharmacists intreatment at the hospital, and this was consideredthose age groups take the lead in businessto be one of the reasons for the difference. As

operations

shown

of

orientation

orientation

and

can

than

than

acquirespecialized

toabove,

the

as

fact

the

that

dutiescommunityofhospital

pharmacist certification on the basis of work

pharmacists and community pharmacists vary, aexperience, which probably gives them greatergap was presumed to have been created in the

motivation to become a generalist or a specialist.

type

of

informationneededbyhospital

Differences were observed between hospital

pharmacists and community pharmacists. The

pharmacists working at designated cancer carepossibility that the current pharmacist-pharmacist

hospitals and community pharmacists who accept

collaboration may not meet the needs ofprescriptions provided by designated cancer care

community pharmacies has been pointed out, andhospitals as regards information needed most forwhile both hospital and community pharmacists

implementing

pharmacist-pharmacist

recognize the need to collaborate, it is speculated

collaboration. It is notable that 26.5% ofthat there is a gap between the information that

community pharmacists who accept prescriptions

hospital pharmacists consider necessary and theprovided by designated cancer care hospitals andinformation that community pharmacists seek to51
51

Itoh ofet al.；Factors
Japanese JournalCommunity Hindering
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)

obtain13). This is consistent with the results of theReferences

present study, and suggests the possibility that it
1)
1. Sakama C, Kogo M, Aoki M, Ishii M,

is not the differences in awareness of the need forfunctional

Shimizu S, Kiuchi Y, National Questionary

pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration, but rather,

Survey for the Present Conditions of Threethe differences in the ways of thinking and the

Medicine Cooperation and the Prospects tofocus of information arising from the different

the Future, Gekkan Yakuji, 2004: 46:

professional affiliations of pharmacists (e.g.,

2073-2083.

collaborationthathinderfully

2)
2. Satoh H, Miki A, Maejima K, Iizuka K,

hospital pharmacy, community pharmacy) may

Yamaga S, Sakashita K, Takano Y, Takahashi

be the inhibiting factor.
In

terms

of

actualefforts

toY, Tajiri K, Takechi Y, Shimada M, Suzuki M,

promoteSawadapharmacist-pharmacist collaboration, it has been
10)

reportedthat

in-depth,

interactive,

betweenandY,

ProblemsofCommunity

Collaboration

andHospitalcooperative drug administration guidance was

Pharmacists for Cancer Chemotherapy andprovided by sharing patient information and

Proposed Corrective Measures, KJ Method

guidance contents after first determining theBased Identification and Planning Workshop,

persons in charge for both the hospital pharmacy

Yakugaku Zasshi, 2014: 134: 563-574.

then

3. Itoh M, Miyata K, Takaya H, Saitoh A,
3)establishing a face-to-face relationship between

Takahashi S, Cooperation between Hospitalthese individuals. We anticipate that in addition

Pharmacy

Department

andto promoting the active use of information andPharmacyinChemotherapy,

communication

Journal of the Japanese Association of Rural

and

the

community

pharmacytechnology

and

(ICT)

and

the

Outpatient

Insurance

Medicine, 2013: 61: 703-709.

cooperative participation of hospital pharmacists
and community pharmacists in home care

4. Ueda H, Kurahashi M, Nakao Y, Nishida S,
4)

conferences, encouraging regular attendance ofTsukamoto Y, lnoue N, Hamaguchi Y, The

community pharmacists in case study meetings in

Usefulness of Sharing lnformation on Oralhospital pharmacies may contribute further to the

Chemotherapy Regimens for Cancer Patients

improvement

throughofpatient

QOL

via

Cooperation

between

Hospital

Pharmacies and Community Drugstores, J

pharmacist-pharmacist collaboration.

Jpn Soc Hosp Pharm., 2012: 48: 356-359.
5. Maehori N, Yamabayashi M, Adachi S,
5)Acknowledgments

Hakamata K, Nagae H, Miyazawa S,
Cooperation Reinforced between HealthWe sincerely thank the pharmacists who

Insurance

participated in the questionnaire survey.

―Experimental

Part of this study was supported by a research
grant

from

the

Japanese

Society

Pharmacy
Operation

andof

HospitalaNewTransmission Tool of Diagnosis Informationofon the Basis of Patient Questionnaire

Pharmaceutical Oncology.
52
52

Japanese Journal
PharmacyCollaboration
Vol.6, No.2, 43-53 (2018)
ItohofetCommunityal.；Factors Hindering

Survey―, J Jpn Soc Health Care Manag.,Pharmacists on the Quality of Team Medical

2006: 6: 661-666.

Care, J Jpn Soc Hosp Pharm., 2012: 48:

66.) Nakai H, Narita M, Kudo K, Nakamura K,

735-738.

Drug

11)
11. Shimanoe C, Mochinaga S, Hirano K,

Community

Nakano Y, Fujito H, Community Pharmacists’Pharmacists through an Ordering System andIssues in Supporting Outpatient Cancer

the Role of Hospital Pharmacists in the

Chemotherapy, J Jpn Soc Health Carelnquiry Process, J Jpn Soc Hosp Pharm.,

Manag., 2010: 11: 189-195.

Understandingoflnquiries

Preparation

Made

by

for

12)
12. Nomori A, Hayakawa T, Wang Z, Hagiwara

2011: 47: 863-867.
77.) Harada K, Matsumoto T, Hashimoto O,

Y, Shimizu H, Shiohara N, Ogata Y,

Kometani Y, Ueyama H, Hirakawa T, Iwata

Sakuradou W, Ikawa M, Ide T, Sakata H, A

K, Hidaka H, Akamatsu T, Masuda K,

Study on the Role of Pharmacies in the

Approach of Board Certified Pharmacy

Regional Network for the Home Care ofSpecialist System－Comparison in 2005 and

Malignancies ―The Use of Home Care2010 － , Kyushu Pharmaceutical Society

Chemotherapy―,

Bulletin, 2012: 66: 69-72.

Association for Health Care Administrators,

betweenJapanese13)
13. Nakamura T, Ito T, Arai T, Gocho S, Uehara

Nishihara M, Katsumata T, The SignificanceCooperationof

2014: 8: 45-53.

88.) Goto E, Taira S, Hosomi M, Maki C,

ofJournalY, Fukuoka K, Okawa T, Takahashi N,

Community

Pharmacists and Hospital Pharmacists using

Yoshidaa Medication Notebook: Questionnaire about

Development

Sharing Cancer Chemotherapy lnformation

Collaboration―the Thing which We Saw

between Pharmacists in Takatsuki City, J Jpn

from an Attitude Survey―, Collection of

Soc Hosp Pharm., 2013: 49: 641-647.

Lecture Abstract of Annual Meeting of the99.) Mase

H,

Ichikawa

K,

Kobayashi

M,

Ikegami
of

N,

For

Further

Pharmacist-Pharmacist

Japanese Society of Pharmaceutical HealthK,

Care and Sciences, 2015: 25: 369.

Kobayashi T, Koyama I, Kinoshita T, Yajima

14. Endo M, Saito M, Morikawa K, Effect of14)

T, Ichino T, Inukai N, Itou K, Examination of
Co-operation with Insurance Dispensing

Joint

Pharmacy for Cancer Patients, Iryo, 2015:

Information

69: 34-37.

Pharmacy and Community Pharmacy forWorkloads

ofSharing

theBi-directional

between

Hospital

Soc Hosp Pharm., 2016: 52: 523-527.

Uchikawa S，lmaizumiY, The lnfluence ofinbyOral Anti-cancer Agent Single Agent, J Jpn

10. Tanaka T, Saito M, lmagawa F, Takeuchi M,
10)Differences

Guidance

Hospital

53
53