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).

Donepezil for the symptomatic treatment of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials

Background: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of donepezil (5 and 10 mg/day) compared with placebo in alleviating manifestations of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Method: A systematic review of individual patient data from Phase II and III double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled studies of up to 24 weeks and completed by 20 December 1999. The main outcome measures were the ADAS-cog, the CIBIC-plus, and reports of adverse events. Results: A total of 2376 patients from ten trials were randomised to either donepezil 5 mg/day (n = 821), 10 mg/day (n = 662) or placebo (n = 893). Cognitive performance was better in patients receiving donepezil than in patients receiving placebo. At 12 weeks the differences in ADAS-cog scores were 5 mg/day-placebo: - 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 2.6 to - 1.6; p < 0.001], 10 mg/day-placebo: - 2.5 ( - 3.1 to - 2.0; p < 0.001). The corresponding results at 24 weeks were - 2.0 ( - 2.7 to - 1.3; p < 0.001) and - 3.1 ( - 3.9 to - 2.4; p < 0.001). The difference between the 5 and 10 mg/day doses was significant at 24 weeks (p = 0.005). The odds ratios (OR) of improvement on the CIBIC-plus at 12 weeks were: 5 mg/day-placebo 1.8 (1.5 to 2.1; p < 0.001), 10 mg/day-placebo 1.9 (1.5 to 2.4; p < 0.001). The corresponding values at 24 weeks were 1.9 (1.5 to 2.4; p = 0.001) and 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8; p < 0.001). Donepezil was well tolerated; adverse events were cholinergic in nature and generally of mild severity and brief in duration. Conclusion: Donepezil (5 and 10 mg/day) provides meaningful benefits in alleviating deficits in cognitive and clinician-rated global function in AD patients relative to placebo. Increased improvements in cognition were indicated for the higher dose. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials: a review of methods used in practice

Background: Meta-analyses based on individual patient data (IPD) are regarded as the gold standard for systematic reviews. However, the methods used for analysing and presenting results from IPD meta-analyses have received little discussion. Methods We review 44 IPD meta-analyses published during the years 1999–2001. We summarize whether they obtained all the data they sought, what types of approaches were used in the analysis, including assumptions of common or random effects, and how they examined the effects of covariates. Results: Twenty-four out of 44 analyses focused on time-to-event outcomes, and most analyses (28) estimated treatment effects within each trial and then combined the results assuming a common treatment effect across trials. Three analyses failed to stratify by trial, analysing the data is if they came from a single mega-trial. Only nine analyses used random effects methods. Covariate-treatment interactions were generally investigated by subgrouping patients. Seven of the meta-analyses included data from less than 80% of the randomized patients sought, but did not address the resulting potential biases. Conclusions: Although IPD meta-analyses have many advantages in assessing the effects of health care, there are several aspects that could be further developed to make fuller use of the potential of these time-consuming projects. In particular, IPD could be used to more fully investigate the influence of covariates on heterogeneity of treatment effects, both within and between trials. The impact of heterogeneity, or use of random effects, are seldom discussed. There is thus considerable scope for enhancing the methods of analysis and presentation of IPD meta-analysis.

A score test for binary data with patient non-compliance

A score test is developed for binary clinical trial data, which incorporates patient non-compliance while respecting randomization. It is assumed in this paper that compliance is all-or-nothing, in the sense that a patient either accepts all of the treatment assigned as specified in the protocol, or none of it. Direct analytic comparisons of the adjusted test statistic for both the score test and the likelihood ratio test are made with the corresponding test statistics that adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. It is shown that no gain in power is possible over the intention-to-treat analysis, by adjusting for patient non-compliance. Sample size formulae are derived and simulation studies are used to demonstrate that the sample size approximation holds. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Comparative performance of UK PFI and non-PFI hospitals

Since the first PFI hospital was established in 1994, many debates centred on the value for money and risk transfer in PFIs. Little concern is shown with PFI hospitals’ performance in delivering healthcare. Exploratory research was carried out to compare PFI with non‐PFI hospital performance. Five performance indicators were analysed to compare differences between PFI and non‐PFI hospitals, namely the length of waiting, the length of stay, MRSA infection rate, C difficile infection rate and patient experience. Data was collected from various government bodies. The results show that only some indexes measuring patient experience emerge statistically significant. This leads to a conclusion that PFI hospitals may not perform better than non‐PFI hospitals but they are not worse than non‐PFI hospitals in the delivery of services. However, future research needs to pay attention to reliability and validity of data sets currently available to undertake comparison.