How was patient empowerment portrayed in information leaflets describing the community pharmacy Medicines Use Review service in the UK?

Objective The Medicines Use Review (MUR) community pharmacy service was introduced in 2005 to enhance patient empowerment but the service has not been taken up as widely as expected. We investigated the depiction of the patient–pharmacist power relationship within MUR patient information leaflets. Methods We identified 11 MUR leaflets including the official Department of Health MUR booklet and through discourse analysis examined the way language and imagery had been used to symbolise and give meaning to the MUR service, especially the portrayal of the patient–pharmacist interactions and the implied power relations. Results A variety of terminology was used to describe the MUR, a service that aimed ultimately to produce more informed patients through the information imparted by knowledgeable, skilled pharmacists. Conclusion The educational role of the MUR overshadowed the intended patient empowerment that would take place with a true concordance-centred approach. Although patient empowerment was implied, this was within the boundaries of the biomedical model with the pharmacist as the expert provider of medicines information. Practice implications If patient empowerment is to be conveyed this needs to be communicated to patients through consistent use of language and imagery that portrays the inclusivity intended.

The benefits of providing benefit information in a patient information leaflet

Objective: To examine the effects of providing two different types of written information about medicine benefits in a patient information leaflet (PIL). Setting: Participants were 358 adult volunteers from the general population recruited from a London railway station and central Reading. Method: The study used a controlled empirical methodology in which people were given a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario about visiting their doctor and being prescribed medication. They then read an information leaflet about the medicine that contained neither, one, or both benefit statements, and finally completed a number of Likert rating scales. Outcome measures included perceived satisfaction and helpfulness of the information, effectiveness and appropriateness of the medicine, benefit and risk to health, and intention to comply. Key findings: Both types of benefit information led to significantly higher ratings on all of the measures taken. Conclusions: Provision of a relatively short ‘benefit’ statement can significantly improve people’s judgements and intention to take a medicine. The findings are important and timely as the European Union is currently considering reviewing their regulations to allow for the inclusion of limited non-promotional benefit information in PILs.

Official warnings on thromboembolism risk with oral contraceptives fail to inform users adequately

Following the 1995 “pill scare” relating to the risk of venous thrombosis from taking second- or third-generation oral contraceptives, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) withdrew their earlier recommended restrictions on the use of third-generation pills and published recommended wording to be used in patient information leaflets. However, the effectiveness of this wording has not been tested. An empirical study (with 186 pill users, past users, and non-users) was conducted to assess understanding, based on this wording, of the absolute and relative risk of thrombosis in pill users and in pregnancy. The results showed that less than 12% of women in the (higher education) group fully understood the absolute levels of risk from taking the pill and from being pregnant. Relative risk was also poorly understood, with less than 40% of participants showing full understanding, and 20% showing no understanding. We recommend that the CSM revisit the wording currently provided to millions of women in the UK.

How is the language of medicines use review leaflets symbolising the service?

Introduction The medicines use review (MUR), a new community pharmacy ‘service’, was launched in England and Wales to improve patients’ knowledge and use of medicines through a private, patient–pharmacist appointment. After 18 months, only 30% of pharmacies are providing MURs; at an average of 120 per annum (maximum 400 allowed).1 One reason linked to low delivery is patient recruitment.2 Our aim was to examine how the MUR is symbolised and given meaning via printed patient information, and potential implications. Method The language of 10 MUR patient leaflets, including the NHS booklet,3 and leaflets from multiples and wholesalers was evaluated by discourse analysis. Results and Discussion Before experiencing MURs, patients conceivably ‘categorise’ relationships with pharmacists based on traditional interactions.4 Yet none of the leaflets explicitly describe the MUR as ‘new’ and presuppose patients would become involved in activities outside of their pre-existing relationship with pharmacists such as appointments, self-completion of charts, and pharmacy action plans. The MUR process is described inconsistently, with interchangeable use of formal (‘review meeting‘) and informal (‘friendly’) terminology, the latter presumably to portray an intended ‘negotiation model’ of interaction.5 Assumptions exist about attitudes (‘not understanding’; ‘problems’) that might lead patients to an appointment. However, research has identified a multitude of reasons why patients choose (or not) to consult practitioners,6 and marketing of MURs should also consider other barriers. For example, it may be prudent to remove time limits to avoid implying patients might not be listened to fully, during what is for them an additional practitioner consultation.

Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients

To make informed decisions about taking medicinal drugs, people need accurate information about side-effects. A European Union guideline now recommends use of qualitative descriptions for five bands of risk, ranging from very rare (affecting < 0·01% of the population), to very common (>10%). We did four studies of more than 750 people, whom we asked to estimate the probability of having a side-effect on the basis of qualitative and quantitative descriptions. Our results showed that qualitative descriptions led to gross overestimation of risk. Until further work is done on how patients taking the drugs interpret these terms, the terms should not be used in drug information leaflets.

The benefits of providing benefit information: examining the effectiveness of provision of simple benefit statements on people's judgements about a medicine

Three experiments examined the effects of adding information about medication benefits to a short written explanation about a medicine. Participants were presented with a fictitious scenario about visiting the doctor, being prescribed an antibiotic and being given information about the medicine. They were asked to make various judgements relating to the information, the medicine and their intention to take it. Experiment 1 found that information about benefits enhanced the judgements, but did not influence the intention to comply. Experiment 2 compared the relative effectiveness of two different forms of the benefit statement, and found that both were effective in improving judgements, but had no effect on intention to comply. Experiment 3 compared the effectiveness of the two forms of benefit information but participants were told that the medicine was associated with four named side effects. Both types of statement improved ratings of the intention to comply, as well as ratings on the other measures. The experiments provide fairly consistent support for the inclusion of benefit information in medicine information leaflets, particularly to balance concerns about side effects.

Is 15 per cent very common? Informing people about the risks of medication side effects

Objectives - To assess the general public's interpretation of the verbal descriptors for side effect frequency recommended for use in medicine information leaflets by a European Union (EU) guideline, and to examine the extent to which differences in interpretation affect people's perception of risk and their judgments of intention to comply with the prescribed treatment. Method - Two studies used a controlled empirical methodology in which people were presented with a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario about visiting their general practitioner and being prescribed medication. They were given an explanation that focused on the side effects of the medicine, together with information about the probability of occurrence using either numerical percentages or the corresponding EU verbal descriptors. Interpretation of the descriptors was assessed. In study 2, participants were also required to make various judgments, including risk to health and intention to comply. Key findings - In both studies, use of the EU recommended descriptors led to significant overestimations of the likelihood of particular side effects occurring. Study 2 further showed that the "overestimation" resulted in significantly increased ratings of perceived severity of side effects and risk to health, as well as significantly reduced ratings of intention to comply, compared with those for people who received the probability information in numerical form. Conclusion - While it is recognised that the current findings require replication in a clinical setting, the European and national authorities should suspend the use of the EU recommended terms until further research is available to allow the use of an evidence-based approach.

Using HIT to deliver integrated care for the frail elderly in the UK: current barriers and future challenges

In this paper we briefly describe the results of a 3 year project examining the use of Health Information Technologies (e.g., electronic patient record systems) to deliver integrated care. In particular, we focus on one group of patient (the frail elderly) and efforts to design an e-health supported healthcare pathway (the frail elderly pathway – FEP). The aim of FEP is to bring together clinicians and staff from health and social care and allow them to share patient information. Our findings show that progress in delivering a fully-supported and working FEP has been slow, not least because of the difficulties experienced by healthcare staff in using current IT systems. In addition, there are many strategic and technical issues which remain unresolved (e.g., systems interoperability).

Evaluating explanations about drug prescriptions: effects of varying the nature of information about side effects and its relative position in explanations

This study evaluates computer-generated written explanations about drug prescriptions that are based on an analysis of both patient and doctor informational needs. Three experiments examine the effects of varying the type of information given about the possible side effects of the medication, and the order of information within the explanation. Experiment 1 investigated the effects of these two factors on people's ratings of how good they consider the explanations to be and of their perceived likelihood of taking the medication, as well as on their memory for the information in the explanation. Experiment 2 further examined the effects of varying information about side effects by separating out the contribution of number and severity of side effects. It was found that participants in this study did not “like” explanations that described severe side effects, and also judged that they would be less likely to take the medication if given such explanations. Experiment 3 therefore investigated whether information about severe side effects could be presented in such a way as to increase judgements of how good explanations are thought to be, as well as the perceived likelihood of adherence. The results showed some benefits of providing additional explanatory information.

Expressing medicine side effects: assessing the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm, and the provision of baseline risk information

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm formats for medicine side effects, with and without the provision of baseline risk information. Methods: A two factor, risk increase format (relative, absolute and NNH) x baseline (present/absent) between participants design was used. A sample of 268 women was given a scenario about increase in side effect risk with third generation oral contraceptives, and were required to answer written questions to assess their understanding, satisfaction, and likelihood of continuing to take the drug. Results: Provision of baseline information significantly improved risk estimates and increased satisfaction, although the estimates were still considerably higher than the actual risk. No differences between presentation formats were observed when baseline information was presented. Without baseline information, absolute risk led to the most accurate performance. Conclusion: The findings support the importance of informing people about baseline level of risk when describing risk increases. In contrast, they offer no support for using number needed to harm. Practice implications: Health professionals should provide baseline risk information when presenting information about risk increases or decreases. More research is needed before numbers needed to harm (or treat) should be given to members of the general populations. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Interpreting information about medication side effects: differences in risk perception and intention to comply when medicines are prescribed for adults or young children

This study investigates whether, and how, people's perception of risk and intended health behaviours are affected by whether a medicine is prescribed for themselves or for a young child. The question is relevant to the issue of whether it is beneficial to produce medicines information that is tailored to particular subgroups of the population, such as parents of young children. In the experiment, participants read scenarios which referred either to themselves or their (imagined) 1-year-old child, and were required to make a number of risk judgements. The results showed that both parents and non-parents were less satisfied, perceived side effects to be more severe and more likely to occur, risk to health to be higher, and said that they would be less likely to take (or give) the medicine when the recipient was the child. On the basis of the findings, it is suggested that it may well be beneficial to tailor materials to broader classes of patient type.

Patients' attitudes towards, and information needs in relation to, nurse prescribing in rheumatology

Aims and objectives: To assess the level of confidence that rheumatology patients would have in nurse prescribing, the effects on likely adherence and particular concerns that these patients have. In addition, given that information provision has been cited as a potential benefit of nurse prescribing, the present study assessed the extent to which these patients would want an explanation for the selected medicine, as well as which types of information should be included in such an explanation. Background: Nurse prescribing has been successfully implemented in the UK in several healthcare settings. Existing research has not addressed the effects on patients' confidence and likely adherence, nor have patients' information needs been established. However, we know that inadequate medicines information provision by health professionals is one of the largest causes of patient dissatisfaction. Methods: Fifty-four patients taking disease-modifying drugs for inflammatory joint disease attending a specialist rheumatology clinic self-completed a written questionnaire. Results: Patients indicated a relatively high level of confidence in nurse prescribing and stated that they would be very likely to take the selected medication. The level of concern was relatively low and the majority of concerns raised did not relate to the nurse's status. Strong support was expressed for the nurse providing an explanation for medicine choice. Conclusion: This research provides support for the prescription of medicines by nurses working in the area of rheumatology, the importance of nurses providing a full explanation about the selected medicines they prescribe for these patients and some indication as to which categories of information should be included. Relevance to clinical practice: Rheumatology patients who have not yet experienced nurse prescribing are, in general, positive about nurses adopting this role. It is important that nurses provide appropriate information about the prescribed medicines, in a form that can be understood.

Health informatics: improving patient-centred healthcare pathway

Nowadays the use of information and communication technology is becoming prevalent in many aspects of healthcare services from patient registration, to consultation, treatment and pathology tests request. Manual interface techniques have dominated data-capture activities in primary care and secondary care settings for decades. Despites the improvements made in IT, usability issues still remain over the use of I/O devices like the computer keyboard, touch-sensitive screens, light pen and barcodes. Furthermore, clinicians have to use several computer applications when providing healthcare services to patients. One of the problems faced by medical professionals is the lack of data integrity between the different software applications which in turn can hinder the provision of healthcare services tailored to the needs of the patients. The use of digital pen and paper technology integrated with legacy medical systems hold the promise of improving healthcare quality. This paper discusses the issue of data integrity in e-health systems and proposes the modelling of "Smart Forms" via semiotics to potentially improve integrity between legacy systems, making the work of medical professionals easier and improve the quality of care in primary care practices and hospitals.

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. Methods: In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-eff ectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. Findings: 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months’ follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0∙58, 95% CI 0∙38–0∙89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0∙73, 0∙58–0∙91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0∙51, 0∙34–0∙78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost eff ective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. Interpretation: The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. Funding: Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Are clinical documents optimised for patient safety? A critical analysis of patient safety outcomes using the EDA error model

Iatrogenic errors and patient safety in clinical processes are an increasing concern. The quality of process information in hardcopy or electronic form can heavily influence clinical behaviour and decision making errors. Little work has been undertaken to assess the safety impact of clinical process planning documents guiding the clinical actions and decisions. This paper investigates the clinical process documents used in elective surgery and their impact on latent and active clinical errors. Eight clinicians from a large health trust underwent extensive semi- structured interviews to understand their use of clinical documents, and their perceived impact on errors and patient safety. Samples of the key types of document used were analysed. Theories of latent organisational and active errors from the literature were combined with the EDA semiotics model of behaviour and decision making to propose the EDA Error Model. This model enabled us to identify perceptual, evaluation, knowledge and action error types and approaches to reducing their causes. The EDA error model was then used to analyse sample documents and identify error sources and controls. Types of knowledge artefact structures used in the documents were identified and assessed in terms of safety impact. This approach was combined with analysis of the questionnaire findings using existing error knowledge from the literature. The results identified a number of document and knowledge artefact issues that give rise to latent and active errors and also issues concerning medical culture and teamwork together with recommendations for further work.