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.

Herbal medicine: the science of the art

In the last 50 years science has provided new perspectives on the ancient art of herbal medicine. The present article discusses ways in which the evidence base for the professional use of 'Western' herbal medicine, as therapy to treat disease, known as phytotherapy, can be strengthened and developed. The evidence base for phytotherapy is small and lags behind that for the nutritional sciences, mainly because phytochemicals are ingested as complex mixtures that are incompletely characterised and have only relatively recently been subject to scientific scrutiny. While some methodologies developed for the nutritional sciences can inform phytotherapy research, opportunities for observational studies are more limited, although greater use could be made of patient case notes. Randomised clinical trials of single-herb interventions are relatively easy to undertake and increasing numbers of such studies are being published. Indeed, enough data are available on three herbs (ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba), St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens)) for meta-analyses to have been undertaken. However, phytotherapy is holistic therapy, using lifestyle advice, nutrition and individually-prescribed mixtures of herbs aimed at reinstating homeostasis. While clinical experience shows that this approach is applicable to a wide range of conditions, including chronic disease, evidence of its efficacy is scarce. Strategies for investigating the full holistic approach of phytotherapy and its main elements are discussed and illustrated through the author's studies at the University of Reading.

Differences in perceived risks and benefits of herbal, over-the-counter conventional, and prescribed conventional, medicines, and the implications of this for the safe and effective use of herbal products

Objectives: To investigate people's views about the efficacy and specific risks of herbal, over-the-counter (OTC) conventional, and prescribed conventional medicines, and their likelihood of taking a second (herbal or OTC conventional) product in addition to a prescribed medicine. Methods: Experiment 1 (1 factor within-participant design); Experiment 2 (1 factor between-participant design). Convenience samples of general population were given a hypothetical scenario and required to make a number of judgements. Results: People believed herbal remedies to be less effective, but less risky than OTC and prescribed conventional medicines. Herbal medicines were not seen as being safer simply because of their easier availability. Participants indicated that they would be more likely to take a herbal medicine than a conventional OTC medicine in addition to a prescribed medicine, and less likely to consult their doctor in advance. Conclusion: People believe that herbal medicines are natural and relatively safe and can be used with less caution. People need to be given clear information about the risks and benefits of herbal medicines if they are to use such products safety and effectively. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Patients' understanding of risk associated with medication use: impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales

Patients want and need comprehensive and accurate information about their medicines so that they can participate in decisions about their healthcare: In particular, they require information about the likely risks and benefits that are associated with the different treatment options. However, to provide this information in a form that people can readily understand and use is a considerable challenge to healthcare professionals. One recent attempt to standardise the Language of risk has been to produce sets of verbal descriptors that correspond to specific probability ranges, such as those outlined in the European Commission (EC) Pharmaceutical Committee guidelines in 1998 for describing the incidence of adverse effects. This paper provides an overview of a number of studies involving members of the general public, patients, and hospital doctors, that evaluated the utility of the EC guideline descriptors (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). In all studies it was found that people significantly over-estimated the likelihood of adverse effects occurring, given specific verbal descriptors. This in turn resulted in significantly higher ratings of their perceived risks to health and significantly lower ratings of their likelihood of taking the medicine. Such problems of interpretation are not restricted to the EC guideline descriptors. Similar levels of misinterpretation have also been demonstrated with two other recently advocated risk scales (Caiman's verbal descriptor scale and Barclay, Costigan and Davies' lottery scale). In conclusion, the challenge for risk communicators and for future research will be to produce a language of risk that is sufficiently flexible to take into account different perspectives, as well as changing circumstances and contexts of illness and its treatments. In the meantime, we urge the EC and other legislative bodies to stop recommending the use of specific verbal labels or phrases until there is a stronger evidence base to support their use.

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).