Alison Blenkinsopp

Patients, society, and the increase in self medication

Self medication with over the counter medicines has long been a feature of the lay health system. With the reclassification of certain drugs, the public can buy preparations that were previously available only prescription. Sales of over the counter medicines are now equivalent to a third of the NHS drugs bill; governments throughout the world see self medication as a way of shifting some of the cost of health care onto consumers. The trend towards increased self care and with it the increasing empowerment of patients has many potential benefits; collaboration between doctors and pharmacists will be critical.

Effectiveness of community physiotherapy and enhanced pharmacy review for knee pain in people aged over 55 presenting to primary care: pragmatic randomised trial

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of two primary care strategies for delivering evidence based care to people aged 55 or over with knee pain: enhanced pharmacy review and community physiotherapy. Design Pragmatic multicentre randomised clinical trial. Setting 15 general practices in North Staffordshire. Participants 325 adults aged 55 years or over (mean 68 years) consulting with knee pain; 297 (91%) reached six month follow-up. Interventions Enhanced pharmacy review (pharmacological management in accordance with an algorithm); community physiotherapy (advice about activity and pacing and an individualised exercise programme); control (advice leaflet reinforced by telephone call). Main outcome measure Change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results Mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 9.1 (SD 3.7), and mean baseline function score was 29.9 (SD 12.8). At three months, the mean reductions in pain scores were 0.41 (SD 2.8) for control, 1.59 (3.2) for pharmacy, and 1.56 (3.4) for physiotherapy; reductions in function scores were 0.80 (8.5), 2.61 (9.8), and 4.79 (10.8). Compared with control, mean differences in change scores for physiotherapy were 1.15 (95% confidence interval 0.2 to 2.1) for pain and 3.99 (1.2 to 6.8) for function; those for pharmacy were 1.18 (0.3 to 2.1) for pain and 1.80 (−0.8 to 4.5) for function. These differences were not sustained to six or 12 months. Significantly fewer participants in the physiotherapy group reported consulting their general practitioner for knee pain in the follow-up period, and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was lower in the physiotherapy and pharmacy groups than in the control group. Conclusions Evidence based care for older adults with knee pain, delivered by primary care physiotherapists and pharmacists, resulted in short term improvements in health outcomes, reduced use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and high patient satisfaction. Physiotherapy seemed to produce a shift in consultation behaviour away from the traditional general practitioner led model of care. Trial registration UK National Research Register N0286046917; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55376150.

Feedback from community pharmacy users on the contribution of community pharmacy to improving the public's health: a systematic review of the peer reviewed and non‐peer reviewed literature 1990–2002

Objective  To systematically review feedback from pharmacy users on their perceptions and experiences of health‐related advice and services provided from community pharmacies.

The role and value of written information for patients about individual medicines: a systematic review

Objective To review research on the role and value of written medicines information for patients from the perspective of patients and health professionals.

Medication reviews: Medication reviews

Recent years have seen a formalization of medication review by pharmacists in all settings of care. This article describes the different types of medication review provided in primary care in the UK National Health Service (NHS), summarizes the evidence of effectiveness and considers how such reviews might develop in the future. Medication review is, at heart, a diagnostic intervention which aims to identify problems for action by the prescriber, the clinican conducting the review, the patient or all three but can also be regarded as an educational intervention to support patient knowledge and adherence. There is good evidence that medication review improves process outcomes of prescribing including reduced polypharmacy, use of more appropriate medicines formulation and more appropriate choice of medicine. When ‘harder’ outcome measures have been included, such as hospitalizations or mortality in elderly patients, available evidence indicates that whilst interventions could improve knowledge and adherence they did not reduce mortality or hospital admissions with one study showing an increase in hospital admissions. Robust health economic studies of medication reviews remain rare. However a review of cost‐effectiveness analyses of medication reviews found no studies in which the cost of the intervention was greater than the benefit. The value of medication reviews is now generally accepted despite lack of robust research evidence consistently demonstrating cost or clinical effectiveness compared with traditional care. Medication reviews can be more effectively deployed in the future by targeting, multi‐professional involvement and paying greater attention to medicines which could be safely stopped.

Extended adherence support by community pharmacists for patients with hypertension: a randomised controlled trial

Objective — To determine the effects of a patient‐centred intervention by community pharmacists on adherence to treatment for hypertension.

Primary care—opportunities and threats: developing prescribing in primary care

Abstract The latest white papers on the NHS focus on stimulating innovation in the delivery of primary care and removing barriers to further development. Some of this innovation relates directly to prescribing in primary care, and in this article the authors speculate on what might happen if the prescribing initiatives referred to in the white papers were extended and disseminated more widely. The initiatives which might have the biggest impact are those encouraging closer collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists and those aiding extension of the current nurse prescribing scheme in primary care. Both offer considerable opportunities to improve primary care, but both bear some potential risks.

Evaluation of a cardiovascular disease opportunistic risk assessment pilot ('Heart MOT' service) in community pharmacies

BACKGROUND Cardiovascular risk-based screening is proposed as a key intervention to reduce premature cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the UK and internationally. This study evaluated a targeted cardiovascular (CVD) assessment pilot in 23 community pharmacies in Birmingham, UK. METHODS The CVD risk assessment service used near-patient testing and the Framingham risk equations administered by pharmacists to screen clients aged 40-70 without known CVD. Outcomes assessed included volume of activity, uptake by deprivation and ethnicity and onwards referral. RESULTS Complete data were available for 1130 of 1141 clients; 679 (60%) male, 218 (19%) smokers and 124 (11%) had a family history of CVD. Overall, 792 (70%) of clients were referred to their general practice: 201 (18%) at CVD risk of 20% or more, remainder with individual risk factor(s). Greater representation from Black (7.4%) and Asian (24.8%) communities and from average and less deprived quintiles than the affluent and most deprived was observed. CONCLUSIONS Community pharmacies can provide a CVD risk assessment service in a UK urban setting that can attract males and provide access for deprived communities and Black and Asian communities. A pharmacy service can support GP practices in identifying and managing the workload of around 30% of clients.

Educational interventions by pharmacists to patients with chronic pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ObjectiveWe hypothesized that educational interventions delivered by pharmacists to patients with chronic pain might improve pain-related outcomes and sought to establish “proof of concept” for this hypothesis. MethodsWe searched electronic databases and published literature for randomized studies that examined an educational intervention in relation to the management of chronic pain that was delivered by a pharmacist to an adult patient. Four studies were included that randomized 400 patients with chronic pain and which followed up patients between 1 and 16 weeks. ResultsPatients receiving these interventions experienced statistically significant benefits in the following outcomes compared with controls: a reduction in average pain intensity of 0.5 on a 0 to 10 rating scale, a reduction in adverse effects by more than 50%, and an improvement in satisfaction with treatment equivalent to approximately 1 point on a 0 to 10 rating scale. The interventions neither had effect on reducing interference from pain on daily life, nor on improving self-efficacy. DiscussionPharmacist-delivered educational interventions seem to reduce adverse events and improve satisfaction, but their clinical benefit on pain intensity is debatable. Our analysis suggests that the role of pharmacists may be important but a deeper understanding and evaluation of the active components of these interventions is needed within clinical trials before wider implementation into clinical practice can be recommended.

Are nurse and pharmacist independent prescribers making clinically appropriate prescribing decisions? An analysis of consultations

Objectives: Legislation and health policy enabling nurses and pharmacists to prescribe a comprehensive range of medicines has been in place in the UK since 2006. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical appropriateness of prescribing by these professionals. Methods: A modified version of the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) was used by 10 medical, seven pharmacist and three nurse independent raters to evaluate a sample of 100 audio-recorded consultations in which a medicine was prescribed by a nurse or pharmacist. Raters were current prescribers with recognized experience in prescribing. Consultations were recorded in nine clinical practice settings in England. Results: Raters’ analysis indicated that, in the majority of instances, nurses and pharmacists were prescribing clinically appropriately on all of the ten MAI criteria (indication, effectiveness, dosage, directions, practicality, drug-drug interaction, drug-disease interaction, duplication, duration, cost). Highest mean ‘inappropriate’ ratings were given for correct directions (nurses 12%; pharmacists 11%) and the cost of the drug prescribed (nurses 16% pharmacists 22%). Analysis of raters’ qualitative comments identified two main themes: positive views on the overall safety and effectiveness of prescribing episodes; and potential for improvement in nurses’ and pharmacists’ history-taking, assessment and diagnosis skills. Cnclusions: Nurses and pharmacists are generally making clinically appropriate prescribing decisions. Decisions about the cost of drugs prescribed and assessment and diagnostic skills are areas for quality improvement.