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.     

Using discrete choice experiments to evaluate alternative electronic prescribing systems

Objective — To assess the relative importance to pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs) of different characteristics of electronic prescribing systems. Methods — A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to obtain preferences for the following attributes of an electronic prescribing scheme: “typical response time”, “frequency of slow responses”, “frequency of unscheduled downtime”, “length of unscheduled downtime”, “frequency of scheduled downtime”, and “frequency of lost/corrupted data”. Preferences of GPs and pharmacists were compared using the Likelihood ratio test and the Wald statistic. The rate at which respondents were willing to trade between attributes and benefit scores for different systems were estimated. Rationality of responses and theoretical validity of responses to the DCE were also assessed. Subjects and setting — 199 pharmacists and 197 GPs in Scotland. Key findings — The usable response rate for the DCE was 42.4 per cent. Preferences of pharmacists and GPs were significantly different. Given the units of measurement, the most important attribute for pharmacists was “length of unscheduled downtime” whereas for GPs it was “typical response time”. Evidence was found of rationality of responses and theoretical validity. Conclusions — All technical attributes of an electronic prescribing system assessed in this study were considered by the respondents to be important. Discrete choice experiments provide useful information on the relative importance and trade‐offs between attributes as well as benefit scores for different systems. The preferences of pharmacists and GPs are significantly different. Future research should investigate the nature of the benefit function, the assumption of trading across attributes and the external validity of the technique.     

Impact of medication regimen reviews performed by community pharmacists for ambulatory patients through liaison with general medical practitioners

Objective — To evaluate the cost and clinical benefits of the provision of medication regimen reviews (MRRs) by community pharmacists for patients identified and referred by a general practitioner using a collaborative approach. Method — There were two cohorts of patients — 105 in stage 1 and 170 in stage 2 — from 34 GPs. The reviews were performed by 45 community pharmacists who had completed a training programme in MRR. The protocol was as follows: (1) a proforma MRR request form, including relevant clinical information and the patient's current regimen, was completed by the GP, (2) the review was conducted by the pharmacist and documented in a proforma report, (3) pharmacists and GPs met to discuss the review findings and recommendations for each patient, and (4) three months later, GPs were surveyed to verify any accepted recommendations and changes to medication regimen. A clinical panel estimated the clinical significance of the regimen changes for a subset of 141 cases. Key findings — The patients had an average of five diagnoses, with cardiovascular disease (34 per cent) and musculoskeletal disease (15 per cent) the most common conditions. A total of 2,220 medications were prescribed, representing a mean of eight per patient. In all, 869 changes to therapy were observed at the three‐month follow up: 47 per cent drug ceased; 17 per cent dose reduced; 11 per cent dose increased; and 12 per cent drug changed. Examining the impact of MRR on the mean number of medications per patient, the null hypothesis of no difference pre‐ and post‐MRR was rejected. There was a mean reduction of one medication per patient (P<0.001). As a consequence of this reduction, the average annual cost of medications was reduced by $A240 per patient. This translated to a projected annual cost saving for medication alone of $A90 per patient after offsetting the $A150 cost (professional remuneration) of the MRR. Considering health outcomes, overall, the reviewers rated at least 40 per cent of the MRR changes as leading to a positive effect on the patient's health. Conclusion — This study provides a good indication that MRR through GP‐pharmacist collaboration in the community can lead to positive clinical benefits and reduction in health care costs.     

Public perceptions of community pharmacists in Benin City,Nigeria

Objective — To determine public perceptions of community pharmacists and pharmacies in Benin City, Nigeria. Method — A self‐completion questionnaire was distributed to a stratified random sample of 1,500 households. Data were collected using a 22‐item, Likert‐type scale which was shown to have 0.77 reliability. The neutral point was assumed to be 66 on the scale of 22 to 110. Scores above 66 were interpreted as positive perception. Results — The response rate was 68.3 per cent (1,025/1500). Almost two‐thirds (64 per cent) of respondents perceived the community pharmacist as a health care provider, and 70 per cent agreed that community pharmacists are needed, especially in the area of medicinal product selection (76 per cent). However, 52 per cent believed pharmacists are profit motivated and only 43 per cent said they would be willing to pay for pharmacist consultation. Respondents reported difficulty in differentiating between pharmacists and pharmacy attendants, with only 58 per cent reporting that they could tell the difference. The pharmacists scored 76.37 ± 27.63, with 60 per cent of respondents scoring them above 66. Conclusion — This study found that community pharmacists received a moderately positive rating from the public. There is a need for community pharmacists to carve out a more distinct professional identity for themselves.     

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.     

Glaucoma patient receipt of information and instruction on how to use their eye drops

Objectives The objectives of the study are: (a) to describe the sources of glaucoma patient's medication information and instruction, and (b) to examine the influence of patient characteristics on the sources of medication information and instruction obtained. Setting Four geographically distinct ophthalmology practices in the US. Method A survey assessing receipt of information and instruction on how to use eye drops was completed by 324 patients. Multivariable logistic and ordinal regression were used to analyse the data. Key findings Fifteen per cent of patients stated that no‐one gave them information about their glaucoma medications, and 20% of patients stated that no‐one showed them how to use their glaucoma medications. Ophthalmologists were the individuals most likely and ophthalmic technicians were the second‐most likely to give the patients information and instruction on how to use their medications. Fourteen per cent of patients stated that pharmacists gave them information about their eye drops. Patients very rarely reported pharmacists or primary care physicians showing them how to use their glaucoma medications. Fourteen per cent of patients reported going to the internet for information. Younger patients were significantly more likely to receive information about glaucoma and glaucoma medications from the internet than older patients. Conclusion Patients are receiving information about glaucoma medications from numerous sources, yet almost one out of five glaucoma patients reported receiving no instruction on the instillation of their eye drops. Pharmacists have the opportunity to educate glaucoma patients about using their medications by giving them information and showing them how to administer the medications correctly.     

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 survey of adverse drug reaction reporting by hospital pharmacists to the Committee on Safety of Medicines — the role of pharmacy departments

Objectives — To identify: (1) how adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting by hospital pharmacists is managed, (2) the education of pharmacy personnel on ADR reporting, (3) pharmacy personnel with a specific role in ADR reporting, (4) the numbers of ADR reports sent to the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and (5) barriers to reporting Method — Postal questionnaire survey of 250 hospital-based drug information (DI) departments Setting — All hospital-based DI departments listed in the United Kingdom Drug Information Pharmacists' Group directory Key findings — A total of 185 questionnaires was returned (74 per cent response). Thirty-five per cent of respondents had a procedure for the reporting of ADRs by pharmacists; 62 per cent of departments actively promoted reporting; 44 per cent of departments reviewed reports before they were sent to the CSM. DI pharmacists were frequently involved in the review of the reports and were usually the designated ADR person. Education on ADR reporting was provided by 69 per cent of departments. Few specialist pharmacists (n=9) were identified as having established a direct link with the CSM. The majority of departments had submitted five or fewer ADR reports to the CSM. The presence of a procedure, promotion of reporting, education and the presence of a designated ADR person were found to be associated with above average rates of ADR reporting (chi-square test) Conclusion — The survey showed that the role played by pharmacy departments in the area of hospital pharmacist ADR reporting varied considerably but in most cases was insufficiently developed     

Community pharmacists' attitudes towards research

Objectives — To investigate community pharmacists' perception of Pharmacy Practice research and to identify perceived barriers preventing their participation in research. Method — A self‐completed postal questionnaire, including 29 attitudinal statements was analysed using factor analysis. Setting — The study group comprised pharmacists working in all 651 community pharmacies in East London and Essex. Key findings — The response rate was 60 per cent. Factor analysis revealed five factors comprising correlated statements. The majority of respondents perceived community based practice research to be important and relevant to them and to the future development of community pharmacy. Fifty‐four per cent agreed that they were prepared to participate in practice research, although 66 per cent of respondents felt their daily activities precluded this. Payment for a research related activity was a major issue impacting on their likely participation, with 72 per cent of pharmacists agreeing that they would only participate if paid to do so. Pharmacists' employment status, ie, whether employee or proprietor, was also associated with willingness and ability to undertake research. Conclusion — Community pharmacists have a positive attitude towards practice research, and under the appropriate circumstances many would be prepared to participate in research.