Empathy in UK pharmacy students: assessing differences by gender, level in the degree programme, part-time employment and medical status

Background: Empathy is an important aspect of patient–healthcare professional interactions.Aims: To investigate whether gender, level in the degree programme, employment and health status affected empathy scores of undergraduate pharmacy students.Method: All undergraduate pharmacy students (n=529) at Queen’s University Belfast were invited via email to completean online validated empathy questionnaire. Empathy scores were calculated and non-parametric tests used to determine associations between factors.Results: Response rate was 60.1% (318/529) and the mean empathy score was 106.19. Scores can range from 20 to 140,with higher scores representing a greater degree of empathy. There was no significant difference between genders (p=0.211). There was a significant difference in scores across the four levels of the programme (p<0.001); scores were lowest at Level 1 and greatest at Level 4 (final year). There were no significant differences in scores for respondents who had a part-time job, a chronic condition, or took regular medication in comparison to those who did not (p=0.028,p=0.880, p=0.456, respectively).Conclusion: A reasonable level of empathy was found relative to other studies; this could be further enhanced at lower levels of the degree pathway.

Pharmacy students' use and views on over-the-counter (OTC) medicines; a questionnaire study

Introduction
The role of the pharmacist centers on ensuring the safe and effective use of medicines, including over-the-counter (OTC) medicines. It is important to ascertain pharmacy students’ use and opinions on OTC medicines, given that they are the pharmacists of the future and that this market continues to expand. This study aimed to investigate Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) final year pharmacy students’ use and views on OTC medicines. Scarce work has been conducted in this area to date.

Methods
Following ethical approval and a pilot study, all students (n=155) were invited to participate in a self-completed questionnaire (n=20 questions), distributed at a mandatory class. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests (Chi-squared and Mann Whitney U-test) were used for data analyses.

Results
The response rate was 99.4% (154/155). The majority (153/155) reported using OTC medicines; the key consideration during personal product selection was effectiveness. Most [96.1% (147/153)] were in agreement that safety was the over-riding concern during OTC consultations. While 96.1% (149/155) considered that using an evidence-based approach improved the quality of patient care, 68.0% (104/153) would be prepared to sell a product that lacks evidence of effectiveness, provided it would not cause harm.

Conclusions
The importance of evidence of effectiveness was acknowledged, yet many students in this study were prepared to recommend unproven products. Further strategies are required at QUB to ensure this routine consideration alongside safety in practice.

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).