What is the new medicines use review ‘patient survey’ attempting to capture in the context of existing patient satisfaction with pharmacy questionnaires and a new conceptual framework?

The community pharmacy service medicines use review (MUR) was introduced in 2005 ‘to improve patient knowledge, concordance and use of medicines’ through a private patient–pharmacist consultation. The MUR presents a fundamental change in community pharmacy service provision. While traditionally pharmacists are dispensers of medicines and providers of medicines advice, and patients as recipients, the MUR considers pharmacists providing consultation-type activities and patients as active participants. The MUR facilitates a two-way discussion about medicines use. Traditional patient–pharmacist behaviours transform into a new set of behaviours involving the booking of appointments, consultation processes and form completion, and the physical environment of the patient–pharmacist interaction moves from the traditional setting of the dispensary and medicines counter to a private consultation room. Thus, the new service challenges traditional identities and behaviours of the patient and the pharmacist as well as the environment in which the interaction takes place. In 2008, the UK government concluded there is at present too much emphasis on the quantity of MURs rather than on their quality.[1] A number of plans to remedy the perceived imbalance included a suggestion to reward ‘health outcomes’ achieved, with calls for a more focussed and scientific approach to the evaluation of pharmacy services using outcomes research. Specifically, the UK government set out the main principal research areas for the evaluation of pharmacy services to include ‘patient and public perceptions and satisfaction’as well as ‘impact on care and outcomes’. A limited number of ‘patient satisfaction with pharmacy services’ type questionnaires are available, of varying quality, measuring dimensions relating to pharmacists’ technical competence, behavioural impressions and general satisfaction. For example, an often cited paper by Larson[2] uses two factors to measure satisfaction, namely ‘friendly explanation’ and ‘managing therapy’; the factors are highly interrelated and the questions somewhat awkwardly phrased, but more importantly, we believe the questionnaire excludes some specific domains unique to the MUR. By conducting patient interviews with recent MUR recipients, we have been working to identify relevant concepts and develop a conceptual framework to inform item development for a Patient Reported Outcome Measure questionnaire bespoke to the MUR. We note with interest the recent launch of a multidisciplinary audit template by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) in an attempt to review the effectiveness of MURs and improve their quality.[3] This template includes an MUR ‘patient survey’. We will discuss this ‘patient survey’ in light of our work and existing patient satisfaction with pharmacy questionnaires, outlining a new conceptual framework as a basis for measuring patient satisfaction with the MUR. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the NHS Surrey Research Ethics Committee on 2 June 2008. References 1. Department of Health (2008). Pharmacy in England: Building on Strengths – Delivering the Future. London: HMSO. www. official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7341/7341.pdf (accessed 29 September 2009). 2. Larson LN et al. Patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical care: update of a validated instrument. JAmPharmAssoc 2002; 42: 44–50. 3. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (2009). Pharmacy Medicines Use Review – Patient Audit. London: RPSGB. http:// qi4pd.org.uk/index.php/Medicines-Use-Review-Patient-Audit. html (accessed 29 September 2009).

Methodology for assessing the appropriateness of Continuing Professional Development for pharmacy professionals’ revalidation

From April 2010, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) will be responsible for the statutory regulation of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in Great Britain (GB).[1] All statutorily regulated health professionals will need to periodically demonstrate their fitness-to-practise through a process of revalidation.[2] One option being considered in GB is that continuing professional development (CPD) records will form a part of the evidence submitted for revalidation, similar to the system in New Zealand.[3] At present, pharmacy professionals must make a minimum of nine CPD entries per annum from 1 March 2009 using the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) CPD framework. Our aim was to explore the applicability of new revalidation standards within the current CPD framework. We also wanted to review the content of CPD portfolios to assess strengths and qualities and identify any information gaps for the purpose of revalidation.

Uptake of a free coronary heart disease risk screening programme in community pharmacy: the Healthy Heart Assessment service

Introduction Health promotion (HP) aims to enhance good health while preventing ill-health at three levels of activity; primary (preventative), secondary (diagnostic) and tertiary (management).1 It can range from simple provision of health education to ongoing support, but the effectiveness of HP is ultimately dependent on its ability to influence change. HP as part of the Community Pharmacy Contract (CPC) aims to increase public knowledge and target ‘hard-to-reach’ individuals by focusing mainly on primary and tertiary HP. The CPC does not include screening programmes (secondary HP) as a service. Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the UK. While there is evidence to support the effectiveness of some community pharmacy HP strategies in CHD, there is paucity of research in relation to screening services.2 Against this background, Alliance Pharmacy introduced a free CHD risk screening programme to provide tailored HP advice as part of a participant–pharmacist consultation. The aim of this study is to report on the CHD risk levels of participants and to provide a qualitative indication of consultation outcomes. Methods Case records for 12 733 people who accessed a free CHD risk screening service between August 2004 and April 2006 offered at 217 community pharmacies were obtained. The service involved initial self-completion of the Healthy Heart Assessment (HHA) form and measurement of height, weight, body mass index, blood pressure, total cholesterol and highdensity lipoprotein levels by pharmacists to calculate CHD risk.3 Action taken by pharmacists (lifestyle advice, statin recommendation or general practitioner (GP) referral) and qualitative statements of advice were recorded, and a copy provided to the participants. The service did not include follow-up of participants. All participants consented to taking part in evaluations of the service. Ethical committee scrutiny was not required for this service development evaluation. Results Case records for 10 035 participants (3658 male) were evaluable; 5730 (57%) were at low CHD risk (<15%); 3636 (36%) at moderate-to-high CHD risk (≥15%); and 669 (7%) had existing heart disease. A significantly higher proportion of male (48% versus 30% female) participants were at moderate- to-high risk of CHD (chi-square test; P < 0.005). A range of outcomes resulted from consultations. Lifestyle advice was provided irrespective of participants’ CHD risk or existing disease. In the moderate-to-high-risk group, of which 52% received prescribed medication, lifestyle advice was recorded for 62%, 16% were referred and 34% were advised to have a re-assessment. Statin recommendations were made in 1% of all cases. There was evidence of supportive and motivational statements in the advice recorded. Discussion Pharmacists were able to identify individuals’ level of CHD risk and provide them with bespoke advice. Identification of at-risk participants did not automatically result in referrals or statin recommendation. One-third of those accessing the screening service had moderate-to-high risk of CHD, a significantly higher proportion of whom were men. It is not known whether these individuals had been previously exposed to HP but presumably by accessing this service they may have contemplated change. As effectiveness of HP advice will depend among other factors on ability to influence change, future consultations may need to explore patients’ attitude towards change in relation to the Trans Theoretical Model4 to better tailor HP advice. The high uptake of the service by those at moderate-to-high CHD risk indicates a need for this type of screening programme in community pharmacy, perhaps specifically to reach men who access medical services less.

British pharmacy professionals’ beliefs and participation in continuing professional development: a review of the literature.

Objectives Continuing professional development (CPD) has potential to be useful in pharmacy revalidation but past uptake and attitudes to CPD in Great Britain (GB) need to be mapped. This review examines published literature to chart the participation and beliefs of pharmacy professionals towards CPD in GB in a decade that had seen a formal transition from continuing education to CPD. Methods A comprehensive review of the published literature was conducted to identify studies of the uptake of, or attitudes towards, CPD cross different sectors of pharmacy in GB from 2000 to 2010. Key findings Twenty-two studies were included and analysed, including 13 research papers, six conference papers, two news items reporting survey outcomes and one commissioned study. Eight barriers to CPD were identified as: time, financial costs and resource issues, understanding of CPD, facilitation and support for CPD, motivation and interest in CPD, attitudes towards compulsory CPD, system constraints, and technical problems. Pharmacy professionals on the whole agreed with the principle of engaging with CPD but there was little evidence to suggest widespread and wholehearted acceptance and uptake of CPD, essential for revalidation. Conclusions If CPD is to succeed, people's beliefs and attitudes must be addressed by recognising and modifying perceived barriers through a combination of regulatory, professional, work-related and personal channels. A number of recommendations are made. Direct experience of effective CPD in the absence of perceived barriers could impact on personal development, career development and patient benefit thus strengthening personal beliefs in the value of CPD in an iterative manner.

British pharmacy professionals' beliefs and participation in continuing professional development: a review of the literature

Objectives:  Continuing professional development (CPD) has potential to be useful in pharmacy revalidation but past uptake and attitudes to CPD in Great Britain (GB) need to be mapped. This review examines published literature to chart the participation and beliefs of pharmacy professionals towards CPD in GB in a decade that had seen a formal transition from continuing education to CPD. Methods:  A comprehensive review of the published literature was conducted to identify studies of the uptake of, or attitudes towards, CPD cross different sectors of pharmacy in GB from 2000 to 2010. Key findings:  Twenty-two studies were included and analysed, including 13 research papers, six conference papers, two news items reporting survey outcomes and one commissioned study. Eight barriers to CPD were identified as: time, financial costs and resource issues, understanding of CPD, facilitation and support for CPD, motivation and interest in CPD, attitudes towards compulsory CPD, system constraints, and technical problems. Pharmacy professionals on the whole agreed with the principle of engaging with CPD but there was little evidence to suggest widespread and wholehearted acceptance and uptake of CPD, essential for revalidation. Conclusions:  If CPD is to succeed, people's beliefs and attitudes must be addressed by recognising and modifying perceived barriers through a combination of regulatory, professional, work-related and personal channels. A number of recommendations are made. Direct experience of effective CPD in the absence of perceived barriers could impact on personal development, career development and patient benefit thus strengthening personal beliefs in the value of CPD in an iterative manner.

Description and process evaluation of pharmacists’ interventions in a pharmacist-led information technology-enabled multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial for reducing medication errors in general practice (PINCER trial)

Objective To undertake a process evaluation of pharmacists' recommendations arising in the context of a complex IT-enabled pharmacist-delivered randomised controlled trial (PINCER trial) to reduce the risk of hazardous medicines management in general practices. Methods PINCER pharmacists manually recorded patients’ demographics, details of interventions recommended, actions undertaken by practice staff and time taken to manage individual cases of hazardous medicines management. Data were coded and double entered into SPSS v15, and then summarised using percentages for categorical data (with 95% CI) and, as appropriate, means (SD) or medians (IQR) for continuous data. Key findings Pharmacists spent a median of 20 minutes (IQR 10, 30) reviewing medical records, recommending interventions and completing actions in each case of hazardous medicines management. Pharmacists judged 72% (95%CI 70, 74) (1463/2026) of cases of hazardous medicines management to be clinically relevant. Pharmacists recommended 2105 interventions in 74% (95%CI 73, 76) (1516/2038) of cases and 1685 actions were taken in 61% (95%CI 59, 63) (1246/2038) of cases; 66% (95%CI 64, 68) (1383/2105) of interventions recommended by pharmacists were completed and 5% (95%CI 4, 6) (104/2105) of recommendations were accepted by general practitioners (GPs), but not completed at the end of the pharmacists’ placement; the remaining recommendations were rejected or considered not relevant by GPs. Conclusions The outcome measures were used to target pharmacist activity in general practice towards patients at risk from hazardous medicines management. Recommendations from trained PINCER pharmacists were found to be broadly acceptable to GPs and led to ameliorative action in the majority of cases. It seems likely that the approach used by the PINCER pharmacists could be employed by other practice pharmacists following appropriate training.

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.

A retrospective audit of medicines use review forms

The medicines use review (MUR) service was introduced in England and Wales in 2005 to improve patients’ knowledge and use of medicines through a private, patient–pharmacist consultation. The pharmacist completes a standard form as a record of the MUR consultation and the patient receives a copy. The 2008 White Paper, Pharmacy in England[1] notes some MURs are of poor or questionable quality and there are anecdotal reports that pharmacists elect to conduct ‘easy’ MURs with patients on a single prescribed medicine only.[2] In 2009, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) launched a multi-disciplinary audit template to review the effectiveness of MURs and improve their quality.[3] Prior to this, we conducted a retrospective MUR audit in a 1-month period in 2008. Our aims were to report on findings from this audit and the validity of using MUR forms as data for audit.

Students’ perception of the safety and value of a herbal vs. a conventional medicine for treating insomnia

University students suffer from variable sleep patterns including insomnia;[1] furthermore, the highest incidence of herbal use appears to be among college graduates.[2] Our objective was to test the perception of safety and value of herbal against conventional medicine for the treatment of insomnia in a non-pharmacy student population. We used an experimental design and bespoke vignettes that relayed the same effectiveness information to test our hypothesis that students would give higher ratings of safety and value to herbal product compared to conventional medicine. We tested another hypothesis that the addition of side-effect information would lower people’s perception of the safety and value of the herbal product to a greater extent than it would with the conventional medicine.

Participation of future pharmacists in a professional development certificate scheme; the paradox of personal identity

The white paper ‘Pharmacy in England’ advocates establishing a new pharmacy regulator, building leadership and integrating undergraduate education.[1] Students must morph into competent pharmacists with the skills, expertise and confidence to lead the profession to 2020 and beyond.[2] One way individuals are encouraged to ‘professionalise’ is through participation in personal/professional development schemes. The British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association (BPSA) and the College of Pharmacy Practice have operated a professional development certificate (PDC) scheme since 2001. The scheme rewards students with a joint certificate for evidence of participation in five accredited activities in one academic year. Although the scheme is relevant to development of students, less than 2% of BPSA members take part annually. We wanted to understand the reasons for the low uptake. Our primary objectives were to examine the portrayal of the scheme and to investigate what it signifies to individuals. We describe our attempts to apply social marketing techniques[3] to the PDC, and we use ‘logical levels of change’[4] to highlight a paradox with personal identity.

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.