Janet Krska

Views of the general public on the role of pharmacy in public health

Objectives To determine the views of healthy adults on the importance of activities aimed at improving public health, on the role of community pharmacies in contributing to these and on a range of potential pharmacy‐based public health services.

The importance of direct patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a patient perspective

AIM To explore the opinions of patient reporters to the UK Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) on the importance of the scheme. METHODS Postal questionnaires were distributed on our behalf to all patient reporters submitting a Yellow Card to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) between March and December 2008, with one follow-up reminder to non-responders. Qualitative analysis was undertaken of responses to an open question asking why respondents felt patient reporting was important. This was followed up by telephone interviews with a purposive sample of selected respondents. RESULTS There were 1362 evaluable questionnaires returned from 2008 distributed (68%) and 1238 (91%) respondents provided a total of 1802 comments. Twenty-seven interviews were conducted, which supported and expanded the views expressed in the questionnaire. Four main themes emerged, indicating views that the YCS was of importance to pharmacovigilance in general, manufacturers and licensing authorities, patients and the public and health professionals. Reporters viewed the YCS as an important opportunity to describe their experiences for the benefit of others and to contribute to pharmacovigilance. The schemes independence from health professionals was regarded as important, in part to provide the patient perspective to manufacturers and regulators, but also because of dismissive attitudes and under-reporting by health professionals. CONCLUSION Direct patient reporting through the YCS is viewed as important by those who have used the scheme, in order to provide the patient experience for the benefit of pharmacovigilance, as an independent perspective from those of health professionals.

The importance of direct patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a patient perspective.

AIM To explore the opinions of patient reporters to the UK Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) on the importance of the scheme. METHODS Postal questionnaires were distributed on our behalf to all patient reporters submitting a Yellow Card to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) between March and December 2008, with one follow-up reminder to non-responders. Qualitative analysis was undertaken of responses to an open question asking why respondents felt patient reporting was important. This was followed up by telephone interviews with a purposive sample of selected respondents. RESULTS There were 1362 evaluable questionnaires returned from 2008 distributed (68%) and 1238 (91%) respondents provided a total of 1802 comments. Twenty-seven interviews were conducted, which supported and expanded the views expressed in the questionnaire. Four main themes emerged, indicating views that the YCS was of importance to pharmacovigilance in general, manufacturers and licensing authorities, patients and the public and health professionals. Reporters viewed the YCS as an important opportunity to describe their experiences for the benefit of others and to contribute to pharmacovigilance. The schemes independence from health professionals was regarded as important, in part to provide the patient perspective to manufacturers and regulators, but also because of dismissive attitudes and under-reporting by health professionals. CONCLUSION Direct patient reporting through the YCS is viewed as important by those who have used the scheme, in order to provide the patient experience for the benefit of pharmacovigilance, as an independent perspective from those of health professionals.

Adverse drug reaction monitoring: comparing doctor and patient reporting for new drugs†

To compare the frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) recorded by doctors with perceived ADRs reported by patients during hospitalization and post‐discharge and to compare both to formal reporting in Thailand.

A community pharmacy-based cardiovascular screening service: views of service users and the public

Objectives  To determine whether pharmacy‐based cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening reached the desired population, the local populations awareness of pharmacy screening and the views of service users and the general public about CVD screening.

Patient views and experiences of making adverse drug reaction reports to the Yellow Card Scheme in the UK

To describe the characteristics of patient reporters to the UKs Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) and the suspect drugs reported, and to determine patient views and experiences of making a Yellow Card report.

How patient reporters identify adverse drug reactions: a qualitative study of reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme.

AbstractBackground: Direct reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to authorities is increasing, but questions remain about how patients identify suspected ADRs and their ability to distinguish between ADRs and other symptoms. Objective: The aim of the study was to determine how reporters to the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) identify ADRs. Methods: We carried out a qualitative analysis of data from three sources, obtained as part of a larger evaluation of patient reporting to the UK YCS: responses to open questions in postal questionnaires sent to all reporters during March 2008–January 2009 (method 1); telephone interviews with a purposive sample of these reporters (method 2); and the free-text field from completed Yellow Card reporting forms submitted during October 2005–September 2007 (method 3). Results: Method 1 involved 1362 questionnaire respondents (67.8% of the 2008 patient reporters during the study period), 1167 of whom explained how they decided they had experienced an ADR. Temporality was the most common reason for the perceived association, given by 820 (70.2%) respondents. 478 (41.0%) provided information on two or more aspects of temporality, such as onset, changes with dose and re-challenge. A total of 383 (32.8%) respondents used information sources, such as patient information leaflets or discussions with health professionals to confirm associations, including 145 (12.4%) who had also reported a temporal association.Telephone interviews with 27 reporters (method 2) provided detailed explanations of temporal associations, particularly experiences of rechallenge, and data from 230 Yellow Card reports (method 3) showed that, although reporters are not required to explain reasons for their suspicions, 74.8% of submitted reports included a temporal association. These reports also showed evidence of causal theorizing and differential diagnosis. Conclusion: In our study sample, most reporters to the YCS feel able to identify suspected ADRs adequately and describe processes of assessing causality that mirror those in standard algorithms designed for use by health professionals. These findings should help to reduce concerns among health professionals about the ability of patients to identify suspected ADRs when reporting to authorities.

A classification system for issues identified in pharmaceutical care practice

Objective — To investigate the usefulness of a system for classifying pharmaceutical care issues (PCIs), defined in Scottish practice guidelines as “an element of a pharmaceutical need which is addressed by the pharmacist,” which were identified during the delivery of pharmaceutical care in a primary care setting.

Perceived factors influencing the development of primary care-based pharmaceutical care in Scotland

Objective — To obtain the views of key pharmacists in Scotland (potential policy‐makers and innovative practising pharmacists) on a systematic approach to pharmaceutical care and on the factors important in its development.

Frequency of counselling on prescription medicines in community pharmacy

Forty five community pharmacists set standards for counselling patients receiving prescription medicines. Replying to a postal questionnaire describing 10 hypothetical scenarios, they identified four priority counselling situations: drugs with a complex dosage regimen, significant interactions, changed or new therapy and uncommon or difficult to use formulations. They estimated their counselling frequency for such situations as 62 per cent.