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).

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.

The audit of regional policy: 1934‐1939

This paper examines the cost-effectiveness of British regional policy during the 1930s. It takes issue with Correlli Barnett, who has argued that regional policy measures introduced from 1945 were already shown to be inefficient by the failure of similar assistance during the 1930s. The evolution of the main 1930s initiatives that influenced post-war policy is discussed and their effectiveness assessed. When account is taken of savings in government welfare payments these initiatives are shown to have been very cost-effective, producing an annual return to the exchequer of around 56%, or more.

The National Audit Office uses OR to assess the value for money of public services

Supreme audit institutions (SAIs) have an important role in assessing value for money in the delivery of public services. Assessing value for money necessarily involves assessing counterfactuals: good value for money has been achieved if a policy could not reasonably have been delivered more efficiently, effectively, or economically. Operations research modelling has the potential to help in the assessment of these counterfactuals. However, is such modelling too arcane, complex, and technically burdensome for organisations that, like SAIs, operate in a time- and resource-constrained and politically charged environment? We report on three applications of modelling at the UK's SAI, the National Audit Office, in the context of studies on demand management in tax collection, end-of-life care, and health-care associated infections. In all cases, the models have featured in the audit reports and helped study teams come to a value-for-money judgment. We conclude that OR modelling is indeed a valuable addition to the value-for-money auditor's methodological tool box.

Facilities management carbon footprints: an audit of critical elements of management and reporting

Concern for the environmental impact of organizations’ activities has led to the recognition and demand for organizations to manage and report on their carbon footprint. However, there is no limit as to the areas of carbon footprints required in such annual environmental reports. To deliver improvements in the quality of carbon footprint management and reporting, there is a need to identify the main elements of carbon footprint strategy that can be endorsed, supported and encouraged by facility managers. The study investigates carbon footprint elements managed and reported upon by facility manager in the UK. Drawing on a questionnaire survey of 256 facility managers in the UK, the key elements of carbon footprints identified in carbon footprint reports are examined. The findings indicate that the main elements are building energy consumption, waste disposal and water consumption. Business travel in terms of using public transport, air travel and company cars are also recognized as important targets and objectives for the carbon footprint strategy of several FM (facilities management) organizations.