Pharmacy involvement in formulary development: community pharmacists' views

A postal survey was carried out in the Eastern health and social services board in Northern Ireland to evaluate the views of community pharmacists (n= 100) on pharmacy involvement in formulary development. There was one mailing, with a response rate of 66 per cent. Most respondents (78.7 per cent) agreed or strongly agreed that pharmacist involvement in formulary development was important. Almost two thirds of responding pharmacists said they would be prepared to approach a GP in relation to such collaborative work and 27 per cent had had previous contact with GPs on the subject. Respondents considered that their input would be particularly useful in improving prescribing, providing cost advice and developing a closer working relationship with GPs. Evaluation of current levels of interprofessional liaison in relation to prescribing issues showed that 33.3 per cent of the pharmacists were already contacted by a GP regularly and 45.4 per cent contacted a GP regularly. Most (80 per cent) rated their working relationship with the GP as useful or very useful. The results suggest that community pharmacists in the Eastern health and social services board are willing to become involved in formulary development, thereby extending the use of practice formularies in general practice and integrating community pharmacy more fully into the primary health care team.     

General medical practitioners' attitudes towards the use of patient medication records

A survey was conducted to ascertain general medical practitioners' (GPs') attitudes to community pharmacists' use of patient medication records (PMRs) and to assess whether GPs envisage a role for family health service authorities (FHSAs) in maintaining records of patients' data. The survey questionnaire was sent by post to all 1,257 GPs in contract with Avon and Devon FHSAs. A total of 811 questionnaires was returned, an overall response rate of 64.5 per cent. A majority (59 per cent) of GPs considered that community pharmacists should keep patient medication records and there was strong support for pharmacists holding PMRs for the elderly and confused, and also for patients with diabetes, asthma, epilepsy, and those patients who had experienced major adverse drug reactions or allergies. Some GPs, however, remained unconvinced of the usefulness of a pharmacy PMR. Seventy four per cent of respondents considered that patients should keep their own medication records. In contrast, only 4 per cent were in agreement with patient medication data being stored by FHSAs. The community pharmacist's role in maintaining PMRs received less support from doctors in dispensing practices than from their non-dispensing counterparts. Some 80 per cent of respondents were in favour of pharmacists providing PMR system-generated patient information leaflets with dispensed medicines. Most GPs considered that such leaflets had a positive effect on patient compliance. Recently registered GPs were found to be more supportive than their older colleagues of community pharmacists recording patients' clinical conditions and providing information leaflets.     

Doctors' and pharmacists' attitudes to the use of sugar‐free and sugar‐containing medicines in the elderly

Background — Much progress has been made towards the prescribing and dispensing of sugar‐free alternatives for medicines used long‐term in children. However, older people may also take sugar‐containing medicines and those with natural teeth are at risk of dental caries. Objective — To assess the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals with regard to the use of sugar‐free medicines with prolonged oral clearance in elderly people. Method — Postal questionnaire survey of three groups of health professionals (general practitioners, community pharmacists, consultant geriatricians). Statistical analysis using factor analysis, Mann Whitney U test and Kruskal Wallis test. Setting — Five districts of north‐east England. Key findings — The overall response rate was 66 per cent (349 responses). Support for the use of sugar‐free medicines was greater among GPs than pharmacists (P=0.014). There was general agreement that, wherever possible, pharmacists should dispense sugar‐free medicines for elderly people, although more GPs (P<0.0001) and consultant geriatricians (P=0.024) agreed than pharmacists. More pharmacists than GPs believed sugar‐free medicines to be more expensive although there was general uncertainty about whether this deters doctors and pharmacists from using them. There was a good understanding of the role of sugars in medicines in the aetiology of dental disease, although respondents felt that elderly people were unaware of this link. Only 51 per cent of respondents agreed that government should subsidise sugar‐free medicines production. Ninety‐four per cent felt that the pharmaceutical industry should produce more sugar‐free products. Conclusion — Although there is support for the sugar‐free option, there is a need to raise the awareness of health professionals to barriers which currently discourage utilisation, and to encourage a more multi‐professional approach in the education of health professionals, health care providers, manufacturers and regulators with regard to sugar control in medicines use and related regulatory issues.     

Community pharmacists' attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting

Objective — A “demonstration” scheme for adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting by United Kingdom community pharmacists began in April, 1997. The objective of this study was to investigate community pharmacists' attitudes to and knowledge of ADR reporting and the “yellow card” scheme. Method — Structured face-to-face interview with community pharmacists, using a prepiloted questionnaire. Setting — Randomly selected community pharmacies within one demonstration scheme area. Key findings — Almost all of the pharmacists (28, 93 per cent) were aware that they were able to report ADRs but only one had done so. Just under half recalled receiving the official information pack and half of these had read it. Reasons given for not submitting reports were lack of information or time, and that most reactions seen were already well-recognised. Although most pharmacists knew that serious reactions to established drugs should be reported, fewer recognised the need to report unusual reactions to established drugs and reactions to herbal medicines. Few participants knew the reporting criteria for “black triangle” drugs. Reporting on over-the-counter (OTC) products was an area specifically identified where it was expected that community pharmacists could “add value” to the previous, yellow card, scheme. It was thus of some concern that 21 pharmacists (70 per cent) agreed that they would be unlikely to report an ADR to a product they had counter-prescribed for a patient. Few respondents had negative attitudes to the scheme. Most agreed that ADR reporting is important, and a professional role in which pharmacists should be involved. Conclusion — Community pharmacists are supportive of their involvement in ADR reporting. Their concerns about reporting need to be addressed and further publicity given to the scheme if reporting is to increase. Our findings suggest that more research is needed to identify the factors which encourage and inhibit reporting, and that further efforts may be needed to promote ADR reporting.     

A postal survey to assess the views of community pharmacists on the deregulation of emergency hormonal contraception

□ This was a postal survey undertaken before EHC was available nationally in UK community pharmacies □ The survey aimed to assess attitudes of UK community pharmacists towards the deregulation of EHC □ A response rate of 66 per cent was attained and the consensus was that community pharmacists broadly agreed with the deregulation of EHC □ Pharmacists believed that the supply of EHC through pharmacies would increase their professional status, and there would be need for GP collaboration □ Although pharmacists welcomed EHC deregulation, they had reservations about legal implications     

An investigation of medicines returned to general practitioners and community pharmacies

All returned medicines were monitored in eight community pharmacies and five general medical practices over a four‐week period Returns were analysed for the type, quantity, absolute cost of the medicines, original quantity and date dispensed together with the reason for return A total of 298 items was returned to pharmacists and the reason for the return was a change or stop of therapy in 56 per cent of cases; 66 per cent of these were prescribed in a quantity of one month or greater A total of 42 items was returned to GPs and the reason for the return involved a change or stop of the therapy in 54 per cent of cases; 69 per cent of these were prescribed in a quantity of one month or greater Measures to implement a procedure to limit prescribed quantities upon initiation of therapy should help to reduce medicines wastage     

The training experience of primary care pharmacists

Objectives — To map the tasks, activities and training provision for primary care pharmacists (PCPs) and to identify perceived future training needs. Methods — Survey undertaken in 1998/1999 using a pre‐piloted, postal, self‐completion questionnaire to two samples of PCPs. Setting — PCPs in (a) the West Midlands and (b) England (outside West Midlands). Key findings — The response rate was 66 per cent. A majority (68 per cent) had worked in the role for less than two years. Eighty per cent had some form of continuing education or training for the role although only 50 per cent had a formal qualification. Over two‐thirds had contributed to the funding of their training, with one‐third providing all funding. Seventy‐four per cent of PCPs agreed that pharmacists should go through a procedure to ensure competence (accreditation) before being allowed to work for a general medical practice or primary care group. Views on the need for formal education/training prior to work differed: 82 per cent of those with formal qualifications, but only 46 per cent of those without, considered that this should be a requirement. There was general agreement that training/education had met training needs. Views on future training closely reflected previous training experiences, with a focus upon pharmaceutical roles rather than upon generic skill development and the acquisition of management skills. Conclusions — The study provides a snapshot in time of the experience of pioneer PCPs and the training available to them. PCPs will need further training or updating if they are to provide the wider roles required by the developing needs of the National Health Service. Consideration should be given to formal recognition of the training of PCPs in order to assure competence. The expectation that pharmacists should fund their own training is likely to be a barrier to uptake of training and uncertainties over funding will militate against consistency of training.     

The development and evaluation of an extended adherence support programme by community pharmacists for elderly patients at home

Objective —To devise, implement and evaluate a medication adherence support service by community pharmacists for elderly patients living at home and at risk of non‐adherence. Method — Six community pharmacists identified patients who were 65 years of age and older, prescribed four or more regular medicines and living alone. A random sample of patients was visited at home and assessed for adherence‐related problems using a structured interview. The pharmacist then drew up an action plan in conjunction with the patient and general practitioner (GP), and returned for a second home visit, where the revised regime was delivered and explained. A self‐reported adherence questionnaire was also administered. After two months an independent researcher visited the patients at home to assess progress. Setting — Six community pharmacies in the city of Leeds, UK, and patients' homes. Key findings — A total of 143 patients were recruited and 441 medicine‐related problems were identified. Of these, 241 (55 per cent) required the provision of information and advice, 106 (24 per cent) required consultation with the GP and 86 (20 per cent) required changes in the presentation of the medicines. The median number of regular prescribed medicines fell from six to five (P<0.001). Overall, there was a reduction in the number of patients with one or more problems from 94 per cent to 58 per cent (P<0.001). The proportion of patients who reported non‐adherence fell from 38 per cent to 14 per cent (P<0.001). Conclusion — This study shows that community pharmacists can target patients at risk of medication non‐adherence and, using a structured approach, identify problems and implement solutions. The pharmacy patient medication record is an underutilised tool for identifying patients with adherence problems. The software needs enhancing to enable pharmacists to maximise their use of these records in adherence support. An adherence support programme needs to take more account of intentional non‐adherence and should be closely linked with the rest of the primary health care team.     

Cross-sectoral pharmacotherapeutic coherence in the Netherlands

Objectives — To measure the extent of pharmacotherapeutic coherence across sectors of Dutch health care from the hospitals' perspective, and to identify perceived markers of coherence and barriers to improvement Methods — Telephone interviews were carried out with hospital pharmacists (76), community pharmacists (5), and clinical pharmacologists (9) affiliated to pharmacies serving 120 Dutch general hospitals. Coherence between (a) hospital and general practice, (b) hospital and nursing home practice, (c) hospitals, and (d) hospital inpatient and outpatient practice was reported and assessed against a set of indicators Results — Almost all hospitals (93 per cent) had formulary agreements or prescribing policies in place and 86 per cent of these had a printed hospital drug formulary (HDF). Over 50 per cent of hospitals reported that they had established coherence with nursing home practice and/or with other hospitals. Less than half of the hospitals had established coherence with general practice. Few hospitals reported activities to review outpatient prescribing and its implications for follow-on prescribing in primary care. Reported barriers to increasing coherence could be classed into three categories: economic, organisational and social. Suggestions to enhance coherence included influencing professionals' practice through training, and greater use of regional and national policies on prescribing Conclusion — Therapeutic coherence within Dutch health care is far from ideal. The discrepancy between the actual and desired extent of coherence arises from organisational and economic barriers. To date, activities in this area have relied on professional proactivity rather than a structured approach. To move forward, (dis)incentives should be created for health care providers and professionals across all sectors, including pharmacists and prescribers     

How do pharmacists manage acute diarrhoea in an 8‐month‐old baby? A simulated client study

Objectives Community pharmacists claim a role in health care based on their added value as counsellors and providers of pharmaceutical care. The aim of this study was to assess to what extent they fulfil this role with respect to the management of acute diarrhoea in an 8‐month‐old baby. Methods In February 2008, two female simulated clients of 55 and 35 years old visited 101 Belgian pharmacies. Both entered the pharmacy and said: ‘I'm here for my grandchild/my sister's baby. She has diarrhoea.’ They only provided more information if the pharmacist asked for it. All the questions and the verbal advice provided by the pharmacist were audio‐recorded and the suggested medicines were registered. Key findings One pharmacist did not ask any questions. All the other pharmacists asked the age of the child, 19% asked how long the symptoms had been on‐going, 27% asked whether the baby had a fever and 24% inquired about vomiting. Seventy‐five per cent of the pharmacists emphasized the importance of sufficient fluid intake and/or the risk of dehydration, while 4% described how to recognize such dehydration symptoms. Oral rehydration solution was suggested by 30% of the pharmacists, while 86% suggested the yeast probiotic Saccharomyces boulardii. Of the 28% spontaneously giving dietary advice, no‐one said that normal feeding should restart ‘as soon as possible’. Thirty‐one per cent advised consulting a doctor, either immediately or in the case of the symptoms not improving after a while. Conclusions Apart from inquiring about the child's age, the majority of pharmacists asked too few questions to be able to analyse the situation properly. Ample information was provided on the risk of dehydration, but counselling on the suggested medicines was insufficient.     

The views of pharmacists supplying emergency hormonal contraception through a patient group direction

Patient group directions (PGD) to supply emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) in community pharmacies have been operating for several years, predating the deregulation of the product to a pharmacy medicine This study explored attitudes of community pharmacists involved in PGD supply towards the scheme; a short self‐completion questionnaire was distributed to 98 community pharmacies, in Manchester, Salford and Trafford and a response rate of 63 per cent was achieved Most respondents thought a private room or area was necessary to provide an EHC service; 78 per cent of pharmacies had regular locums working in pharmacy, but only a third of all the locums were trained to supply EHC Sixty per cent of respondents admitted that there were days when their pharmacy could not supply the EHC service One cause of dissatisfaction among the pharmacists offering the scheme was the lack of personal remuneration     

Community pharmacists�� opinions of their role in administering non-prescription medicines in an emergency

Objective To obtain community pharmacists?? opinions of their role in administering Pharmacy (S2) and Pharmacist Only (S3) Medicines in a medical emergency. These medicines can only be sold in a pharmacy and are not available for self-selection by patients. Whilst qualified pharmacy assistants can supply S2 medicines, pharmacists must be directly involved in the supply of S3 medicines. Setting Community pharmacies in South East Queensland, Australia. Method A survey of 151 Gold Coast and Toowoomba community pharmacists was conducted during October 2009. Main outcome measures Pharmacists were asked their opinions as to whether the administration of S2 and S3 medicines should fall within their scope of practice, whether they had administered S2 and S3 medicines in a medical emergency in the past and if clarification of this role was required. Results The study achieved a 30% (n = 45) response rate and demonstrated similar results regarding whether pharmacists should administer salbutamol (22/44), adrenaline (23/42), glyceryl trinitrate (22/43) and aspirin (18/36) in a medical emergency. The majority (36/43) believed that role clarification was required. Pharmacists were more likely to administer an S3 medicine in a medical emergency when they considered potential outcomes first, had no easy access to a doctor and the patient could not administer the medicine they carried with them themselves (40/45). Conclusion Community pharmacists have direct access to S2 and S3 medicines that could be required in the management of a variety of medical emergencies. This study demonstrates that some pharmacists have administered S2 and S3 medicines in an emergency situation. However, there are currently no clear guidelines for pharmacists when faced with a medical emergency other than to act within their professional competence. To promote patient safety through the appropriate use of S2 and S3 medicines in the event of a medical emergency, additional training of pharmacists on the administration of these readily accessible medicines is needed. Clarification of the role of pharmacists in an emergency situation is required.