Coronary heart disease risk screening: the community pharmacy Healthy Heart Assessment Service

Objectives We examined the characteristics and CHD risks of people who accessed the free Healthy Heart Assessment (HHA) service operated by a large UK pharmacy chain from August 2004 to April 2006. Methods Associations between participants’ gender, age, and socioeconomics were explored in relation to calculated 10-year CHD risks by cross-tabulation of the data. Specific associations were tested by forming contingency tables and using Pearson chi-square (χ2). Results Data from 8,287 records were analysable; 5,377 were at low and 2,910 at moderate-to-high CHD risk. The likelihood of moderate-to-high risk for a male versus female participant was significantly higher with a relative risk ratio (RRR) 1.72 (P < 0.001). A higher percentage of those in socioeconomic categories ‘constrained by circumstances’ (RRR 1.15; P < 0.05) and ‘blue collar communities’ (RRR 1.13; P < 0.05) were assessed with moderate-to-high risk compared to those in ‘prospering suburbs’. Conclusions People from ‘hard-to-reach’ sectors of the population, men and people from less advantaged communities, accessed the HHA service and were more likely to return moderate-to-high CHD risk. Pharmacists prioritised provision of lifestyle information above the sale of a product. Our study supports the notion that pharmacies can serve as suitable environments for the delivery of similar screening services.

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).

Errors associated with preparation of adult and paediatric parenteral nutrition in UK hospital pharmacies

Rationale: In UK hospitals, the preparation of all total parenteral nutrition (TPN) products must be made in the pharmacy as TPNs are categorised as high-risk injectables (NPSA/2007/20). The National Aseptic Error Reporting Scheme has been collecting data on pharmacy compounding errors in the UK since August 2003. This study reports on types of error associated with the preparation of TPNs, including the stage at which these were identified and potential and actual patient outcomes. Methods: Reports of compounding errors for the period 1/2004 - 3/2007 were analysed on an Excel spreadsheet. Results: Of a total of 3691 compounding error reports, 674 (18%) related to TPN products; 548 adult vs. 126 paediatric. A significantly higher proportion of adult TPNs (28% vs. 13% paediatric) were associated with labelling errors and a significantly higher proportion of paediatric TPNs (25% vs. 15% adult) were associated with incorrect transcriptions (Chi-Square Test; p<0.005). Labelling errors were identified equally by pharmacists (42%) and technicians (48%) with technicians detecting mainly at first check and pharmacists at final check. Transcription errors were identified mainly by technicians (65% vs. 27% pharmacist) at first check. Incorrect drug selection (13%) and calculation errors (9%) were associated with adult and paediatric TPN preparations in the same ratio. One paediatric TPN error detected at first check was considered potentially catastrophic; 31 (5%) errors were considered of major and 38 (6%) of moderate potential consequence. Five errors (2 moderate, 1 minor) were identified during or after administration. Conclusions: While recent UK patient safety initiatives are aimed at improving the safety of injectable medicines in clinical areas, the current study highlights safety problems that exist within pharmacy production units. This could be used in the creation of an error management tool for TPN compounding processes within hospital pharmacies.

Uptake of a free coronary heart disease risk screening programme in community pharmacy: the Healthy Heart Assessment service

Introduction Health promotion (HP) aims to enhance good health while preventing ill-health at three levels of activity; primary (preventative), secondary (diagnostic) and tertiary (management).1 It can range from simple provision of health education to ongoing support, but the effectiveness of HP is ultimately dependent on its ability to influence change. HP as part of the Community Pharmacy Contract (CPC) aims to increase public knowledge and target ‘hard-to-reach’ individuals by focusing mainly on primary and tertiary HP. The CPC does not include screening programmes (secondary HP) as a service. Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the UK. While there is evidence to support the effectiveness of some community pharmacy HP strategies in CHD, there is paucity of research in relation to screening services.2 Against this background, Alliance Pharmacy introduced a free CHD risk screening programme to provide tailored HP advice as part of a participant–pharmacist consultation. The aim of this study is to report on the CHD risk levels of participants and to provide a qualitative indication of consultation outcomes. Methods Case records for 12 733 people who accessed a free CHD risk screening service between August 2004 and April 2006 offered at 217 community pharmacies were obtained. The service involved initial self-completion of the Healthy Heart Assessment (HHA) form and measurement of height, weight, body mass index, blood pressure, total cholesterol and highdensity lipoprotein levels by pharmacists to calculate CHD risk.3 Action taken by pharmacists (lifestyle advice, statin recommendation or general practitioner (GP) referral) and qualitative statements of advice were recorded, and a copy provided to the participants. The service did not include follow-up of participants. All participants consented to taking part in evaluations of the service. Ethical committee scrutiny was not required for this service development evaluation. Results Case records for 10 035 participants (3658 male) were evaluable; 5730 (57%) were at low CHD risk (<15%); 3636 (36%) at moderate-to-high CHD risk (≥15%); and 669 (7%) had existing heart disease. A significantly higher proportion of male (48% versus 30% female) participants were at moderate- to-high risk of CHD (chi-square test; P < 0.005). A range of outcomes resulted from consultations. Lifestyle advice was provided irrespective of participants’ CHD risk or existing disease. In the moderate-to-high-risk group, of which 52% received prescribed medication, lifestyle advice was recorded for 62%, 16% were referred and 34% were advised to have a re-assessment. Statin recommendations were made in 1% of all cases. There was evidence of supportive and motivational statements in the advice recorded. Discussion Pharmacists were able to identify individuals’ level of CHD risk and provide them with bespoke advice. Identification of at-risk participants did not automatically result in referrals or statin recommendation. One-third of those accessing the screening service had moderate-to-high risk of CHD, a significantly higher proportion of whom were men. It is not known whether these individuals had been previously exposed to HP but presumably by accessing this service they may have contemplated change. As effectiveness of HP advice will depend among other factors on ability to influence change, future consultations may need to explore patients’ attitude towards change in relation to the Trans Theoretical Model4 to better tailor HP advice. The high uptake of the service by those at moderate-to-high CHD risk indicates a need for this type of screening programme in community pharmacy, perhaps specifically to reach men who access medical services less.

British pharmacy professionals’ beliefs and participation in continuing professional development: a review of the literature.

Objectives Continuing professional development (CPD) has potential to be useful in pharmacy revalidation but past uptake and attitudes to CPD in Great Britain (GB) need to be mapped. This review examines published literature to chart the participation and beliefs of pharmacy professionals towards CPD in GB in a decade that had seen a formal transition from continuing education to CPD. Methods A comprehensive review of the published literature was conducted to identify studies of the uptake of, or attitudes towards, CPD cross different sectors of pharmacy in GB from 2000 to 2010. Key findings Twenty-two studies were included and analysed, including 13 research papers, six conference papers, two news items reporting survey outcomes and one commissioned study. Eight barriers to CPD were identified as: time, financial costs and resource issues, understanding of CPD, facilitation and support for CPD, motivation and interest in CPD, attitudes towards compulsory CPD, system constraints, and technical problems. Pharmacy professionals on the whole agreed with the principle of engaging with CPD but there was little evidence to suggest widespread and wholehearted acceptance and uptake of CPD, essential for revalidation. Conclusions If CPD is to succeed, people's beliefs and attitudes must be addressed by recognising and modifying perceived barriers through a combination of regulatory, professional, work-related and personal channels. A number of recommendations are made. Direct experience of effective CPD in the absence of perceived barriers could impact on personal development, career development and patient benefit thus strengthening personal beliefs in the value of CPD in an iterative manner.

British pharmacy professionals' beliefs and participation in continuing professional development: a review of the literature

Objectives:  Continuing professional development (CPD) has potential to be useful in pharmacy revalidation but past uptake and attitudes to CPD in Great Britain (GB) need to be mapped. This review examines published literature to chart the participation and beliefs of pharmacy professionals towards CPD in GB in a decade that had seen a formal transition from continuing education to CPD. Methods:  A comprehensive review of the published literature was conducted to identify studies of the uptake of, or attitudes towards, CPD cross different sectors of pharmacy in GB from 2000 to 2010. Key findings:  Twenty-two studies were included and analysed, including 13 research papers, six conference papers, two news items reporting survey outcomes and one commissioned study. Eight barriers to CPD were identified as: time, financial costs and resource issues, understanding of CPD, facilitation and support for CPD, motivation and interest in CPD, attitudes towards compulsory CPD, system constraints, and technical problems. Pharmacy professionals on the whole agreed with the principle of engaging with CPD but there was little evidence to suggest widespread and wholehearted acceptance and uptake of CPD, essential for revalidation. Conclusions:  If CPD is to succeed, people's beliefs and attitudes must be addressed by recognising and modifying perceived barriers through a combination of regulatory, professional, work-related and personal channels. A number of recommendations are made. Direct experience of effective CPD in the absence of perceived barriers could impact on personal development, career development and patient benefit thus strengthening personal beliefs in the value of CPD in an iterative manner.

CPD records for revalidation: assessing fitness-to-practise using ‘revalidation standards’ and an Outcomes Framework

Background: Currently, all pharmacists and technicians registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain must complete a minimum of nine Continuing Professional Development (CPD) record (entries) each year. From September 2010 a new regulatory body, the General Pharmaceutical Council, will oversee the regulation (including revalidation) of all pharmacy registrants in Great Britain. CPD may provide part of the supporting evidence that a practitioner submits to the regulator as part of the revalidation process. Gaps in knowledge necessitated further research to examine the usefulness of CPD in a pharmacy revalidation Project aims: The overall aims of this project were to summarise pharmacy professionals’ past involvement in CPD, examine the usability of current CPD entries for the purpose of revalidation, and to examine the impact of ‘revalidation standards’ and a bespoke Outcomes Framework on the conduct and construction of CPD entries for future revalidation of pharmacy professionals. We completed a comprehensive review of the literature, devised, validated and tested the impact of a new CPD Outcomes Framework and related training material in an empirical investigation involving volunteer pharmacy professionals and also spoke with our participants to bring meaning and understanding to the process of CPD conduct and recording and to gain feedback on the study itself. Key findings: The comprehensive literature review identified perceived barriers to CPD and resulted in recommendations that could potentially rectify pharmacy professionals’ perceptions and facilitate participation in CPD. The CPD Outcomes Framework can be used to score CPD entries Compared to a control (CPD and ‘revalidation standards’ only), we found that training participants to apply the CPD Outcomes Framework resulted in entries that scored significantly higher in the context of a quantitative method of CPD assessment. Feedback from participants who had received the CPD Outcomes Framework was positive and a number of useful suggestions were made about improvements to the Framework and related training. Entries scored higher because participants had consciously applied concepts linked to the CPD Outcomes Framework whereas entries scored low where participants had been unable to apply the concepts of the Framework for a variety of reasons including limitations posed by the ‘Plan & Record’ template. Feedback about the nature of the ‘revalidation standards’ and their application to CPD was not positive and participants had not in the main sought to apply the standards to their CPD entries – but those in the intervention group were more likely to have referred to the revalidation standards for their CPD. As assessors, we too found the process of selecting and assigning ‘revalidation standards’ to individual CPD entries burdensome and somewhat unspecific. We believe that addressing the perceived barriers and drawing on the facilitators will help deal with the apparent lack of engagement with the revalidation standards and have been able to make a set of relevant recommendations. We devised a model to explain and tell the story of CPD behaviour. Based on the concepts of purpose, action and results, the model centres on explaining two types of CPD behaviour, one following the traditional CE pathway and the other a more genuine CPD pathway. Entries which scored higher when we applied the CPD Outcomes Framework were more likely to follow the CPD pathway in the model above. Significant to our finding is that while participants following both models of practice took part in this study, the CPD Outcomes Framework was able to change people’s CPD behaviour to make it more inline with the CPD pathway. The CPD Outcomes Framework in defining the CPD criteria, the training pack in teaching the basis and use of the Framework and the process of assessment in using the CPD Outcomes Framework, would have interacted to improve participants’ CPD through a collective process. Participants were keen to receive a curriculum against which certainly CE-type activities could be conducted and another important observation relates to whether CE has any role to play in pharmacy professionals’ revalidation. We would recommend that the CPD Outcomes Framework is used in the revalidation of pharmacy professionals in the future provided the requirement to submit 9 CPD entries per annum is re-examined and expressed more clearly in relation to what specifically participants are being asked to submit – i.e. the ratio of CE to CPD entries. We can foresee a benefit in setting more regular intervals which would act as deadlines for CPD submission in the future. On the whole, there is value in using CPD for the purpose of pharmacy professionals’ revalidation in the future.