Rediscovering the King of Woodpeckers: Exploring the Implications

The Ivory-billed Woodpecker has long held a special place in the psyche of North American conservation, eliciting unusually colorful prose, even from scientists, as an icon of the wild. The reverence in which it was held did little to slow the habitat loss that led to its apparent extinction 60 years ago. A consequence of the emotion and attention associated with the amazing rediscovery of this species is that conservation biologists will be under considerable pressure to make good on this “second chance.” This poses a challenge to conservation paradigms that has important political consequences. First, the decline of the species is due to habitat loss, recovery from which has been much more seldom achieved than recovery from declines due to impacts on vital rates. This challenge is exacerbated by the enormous area requirements of the species. Second, the species at best exists as a critically small population. It will be difficult to make the case that a viable population can be established without undermining the small population paradigm that underlies conservation strategies for many other species. This has already resulted in some political backlash. Conservation of this species is best based on the one point of clear scientific consensus, that habitat is limiting, but this may result in additional political backlash because of conflicts with other land uses.

Bridging the two cultures. Commercial archaeology and the study of prehistoric Britain

This paper was given at a meeting of the Society held on 12 January 2006 and it discusses the relationship between academic research and developer-funded archaeology in Britain today, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. It considers the relationship between archaeological theory and practice and discusses the changing roles of academics, fieldworkers and managers. It argues that important issues need to be resolved, including the dissemination of information from recent archaeological fieldwork and the use of ‘grey literature’ in informing more ambitious interpretations of the past.

The Palaeolithic Rivers of Southwest Britain

The Palaeolithic Rivers of Southwest Britain (PRoSWeB) project synthesises the archaeological evidence for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic occupation of south-west Britain (c. 500,000 - 40,000 BP), with a principal focus upon the archaeological and geological potential of the region's Middle Pleistocene fluvial environments. South-west Britain was defined as the region west of the headwaters of the Rivers Frome and Piddle and south-west of the River Avon.

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.

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.

The aetiology and treatment of developmental stammering in childhood

Developmental stammering (DS, also known as idiopathic stammering or stuttering) is a disorder of speech fluency that affects approximately 0.75% to 1% of the populations of Great Britain, Australia and America,(1-4) although a recent study puts the point prevalence figure at between 1% and 3% in the UK.(5) Prevalence is generally thought to be similar amongst communities worldwide, although there have been occasional suggestions that this figure might be lower in countries where there is less pressure on verbal acuity.(6) DS may be distinguished from neurogenic stammering, which can occur subsequent to neurological damage of various aetiologies (for example, stroke, tumour, degenerative disease) and psychogenic stammering, whose onset can be related to a significant psychological event such as bereavement. While a diagnosis of neurogenic stammering might be made in early childhood and adolescence, both neurogenic and psychogenic types are typically associated with an adult onset. DS is by far the most common form of stammering and usually develops in the pre-school years. The mean age at onset is 4 2, with 75% of cases beginning before the age of 6.(1) However, occasionally, stammering onset may be seen as late as 12 or 13 years of age.