What do patients want to know about their medicines, and what do doctors want to tell them?: a comparative study

A two phase study is reported. In the first phase, we asked a number of doctors to rate a list of information categories (identified by Berry, Gillie and Banbury 1995) in terms of how important they felt it was for the items to be included in an explanation to a patient about a drug prescription. In the second phase, we presented a large sample of people with a scenario about visiting their doctor and being prescribed medication, together with an explanation about the prescription which was said to be provided by the doctor. Four different explanations were compared, which were either based on what people in our earlier study wanted to know about drug prescriptions or on what the doctors thought it was important lo tell them. We also manipulated whether or not the explanations conveyed negative information (e.g. about the possible side effects of the medication). The results showed that people 'preferred' the explanations based on what the participants in the earlier study wanted to know about their medicines, rather than those based on what the doctors thought they should be told. They also 'preferred' the explanations that did not convey negative information, rather than those that did convey some negative information. In addition, the inclusion of negative information affected ratings of likely compliance with the prescribed medication.

Quality of medicines stored together in multi-compartment compliance aids

Background and Objective: Dispensing medicines into compliance aids is a common practice in pharmacy contrary to manufacturers’ advice and studies have shown the appearance of light-sensitive tablets is compromised by such storage; we previously found evidence of reduced bioavailability at elevated temperature and humidity. Our objective was to examine the physicochemical stability of two generic atenolol tablets in different compliance aids and with aspirin co-storage at room temperature and at 40 °C/75% relative humidity. Methods: The physicochemical stability of atenolol tablets was evaluated after 28 days of storage and compared with controls by examining visual appearance, weight, disintegration, dissolution, friability and hardness to accepted standards and using a previously validated HPLC method for chemical assay. Results and Discussion: The response to storage was brand-dependent and not straightforward. With one make of atenolol (Alpharma), storage in compliance aids even at room temperature impacted on physical stability, reducing tablet hardness, with storage in Dosett® exerting a greater impact than storage in Medidos® (t-test P < 0·001). Co-storage at elevated temperature and humidity also impacted on the appearance of non-coated aspirin tablets (Angette™). The chemical stability of atenolol was not affected and we did not find evidence of changes to bioavailability with either make. Certainly data for one atenolol make (CP Pharmaceuticals) co-stored with aspirin (Angette™ and Nu-Seals) in both compliance aids at room temperature provided evidence of short-term stability. But medicines are dispensed into compliance aids in multi-factorial ways so our study highlights not only the lack of evidence but also a realization that evidence to support real practice may not be accomplished through research. Conclusion: Reassuring practitioners of the continued stability of medicines in compliance aids under the countless condition in which they are dispensed in practice may requires a different approach involving medical device regulators and more definitive professional guidance.

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.

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.

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.

Information processing: US Patent 4,409,617

An information processor for rendering input data compatible with standard video recording and/or display equipment, comprizing means for digitizing the input data over periods which are synchronous with the fields of a standard video signal, a store adapted to store the digitized data and release stored digitized data in correspondence wiht the line scan of a standard video monitor, the store having two halves which correspond to the interlaced fields of a standard video signal and being so arranged that one half is filed while the other is emptied, and means for converting the released stored digitized data into video luminance signals. The input signals may be in digital or analogue form. A second stage which reconstitutes the recorded data is also described.