Jonathan Silcock

The organisation and development of primary care pharmacy in the United Kingdom

Primary care pharmacists carry out clinical and administrative work directly for family doctors and primary care organisations. They are a relatively recent innovation and their role in the United Kingdom (UK)s National Health Service (NHS) is still developing. The economic liberalization of the NHS in the 1990s seems to have provided a major stimulus for the growth of primary care pharmacy. The establishment of the new professional group was not linked to a deliberate plan or change in health policy with respect to pharmacist development. Primary care pharmacy practice is much more varied and flexible than traditional pharmacy practice in the community and hospitals. Standards and professional organisation for primary care pharmacy are slowly emerging. Modernization of the NHS is providing many new opportunities, which primary care pharmacists are well placed to take advantage of. Traditional community pharmacy faces many problems unless it can learn to develop alongside primacy care pharmacy. Pharmaceutical care is set to improve in the United Kingdom, but the precise nature of future services and providers remains uncertain.

The impact of the pharmacist on an elective general surgery pre‐admission clinic

Objective: A traditional clinical pharmacy service for surgical patients involves a ward visit that identifies and responds to issues after prescribing has taken place. It was hypothesised that pharmacist involvement in a general surgery pre‐admission clinic (PAC) would provide elective patients with significantly better pharmaceutical care than ward visits alone.Method: 100 elective general surgery patients were recruited into 2 groups as part of a non‐randomised controlled trial. The groups were comparable in terms of age, surgical procedure and use of medicines. The control group received standard ward visits. The intervention group had pharmaceutical assessment in a pre‐admission clinic. This assessment incorporated pharmacist‐led drug history taking and prescription transcription.Outcome measures: Number, classification and clinical significance of pharmaceutical interventions.Results: A pharmacist made 76 interventions in the PAC group and 79 interventions in the ward group. No prescribing errors and omissions were made in the PAC group. The clinical significance of PAC interventions was rated more highly than ward interventions on two scales. Involvement in the PAC increased the pharmacists workload, but saved time for surgical and nursing staff. Surgical and nursing staff identified writing discharge prescriptions as the most valuable service provided by the PAC pharmacist.Conclusion: By ensuring safe prescribing in the PAC group, the pharmacist was able to become more involved in clinical issues. Pharmacist involvement in PACs presents a useful opportunity for expansion of pharmacy services. However, extra resources would be needed in order to provide these services fully.

Do community pharmacists have the attitudes and knowledge to support evidence based self-management of low back pain?

BackgroundIn many countries, community pharmacists can be consulted without appointment in a large number of convenient locations. They are in an ideal position to give advice to patients at the onset of low back pain and also reinforce advice given by other healthcare professionals. There is little specific information about the quality of care provided in the pharmacy for people with back pain. The main objectives of this survey were to determine the attitudes, knowledge and reported practice of English pharmacists advising people who present with acute or chronic low back pain.MethodsA questionnaire was designed for anonymous self-completion by pharmacists attending continuing education sessions. Demographic questions were designed to allow comparison with a national pharmacy workforce survey. Attitudes were measured with the Back Beliefs Questionnaire (BBQ) and questions based on the Working Backs Scotland campaign. Questions about the treatment of back pain in the community pharmacy were written (or adapted) to reflect and characterise the nature of practice. In response to two clinical vignettes, respondents were asked to select proposals that they would recommend in practice.Results335 responses from community pharmacists were analysed. Middle aged pharmacists, women, pharmacy managers and locums were over-represented compared to registration and workforce data. The mean (SD) BBQ score for the pharmacists was 31.37 (5.75), which was slightly more positive than in similar surveys of other groups. Those who had suffered from back pain seem to demonstrate more confidence (fewer negative feelings, more advice opportunities and better advice provision) in their perception of advice given in the pharmacy. Awareness of written information that could help to support practice was low. Reponses to the clinical vignettes were generally in line with the evidence base. Pharmacists expressed some caution about recommending activity. Most respondents said they would benefit from more education about back pain.ConclusionThose sampled generally expressed positive attitudes about back pain and were able to offer evidence based advice. Pharmacists may benefit from training to increase their ability and confidence to offer support for self-care in back pain. Further research would be useful to clarify the representativeness of the sample.

Is medication review by primary-care pharmacists for older people cost effective?: a narrative review of the literature, focusing on costs and benefits.

AbstractThe nature, definition and history of medication review of long-term conditions and treatment is discussed. A literature search for studies of medication review of older people in primary care by pharmacists yielded 16 reports of studies in English, and only ten of these were randomized controlled trials. Extracting meaningful conclusions from the data was problematic because of variations in the nature of the review described, the populations studied, the outcome data measured and the evaluation criteria used. There is a dearth of economic measurement and often inadequate descriptions of the interventions performed. Those interventions that were described in detail varied in the skills, training and approach of the pharmacists. Therefore, there was no possibility of aggregating results of studies, and the review conclusions are based on trends and impression rather than meta-analysis.There was no suggestion in any reports that patients were harmed by the interventions, and some consistency in suggesting that falls and hospital admissions might be reduced with modest cost savings, at least in terms of drug costs. No studies reported a benefit in terms of mortality, mental capacity or activities of daily living. The authors conclude that clinical medication review is probably of value and may be cost effective, but propose a large-scale, longterm, multicentre, collaborative clinical trial with carefully chosen (and clearly described) interventions and outcome measures to confirm this.

Performance-based readability testing of participant materials for a phase I trial: TGN1412

Background: Concern has been expressed about the process of consent to clinical trials, particularly in phase I “first-in-man” trials. Trial participant information sheets are often lengthy and technical. Content-based readability testing of sheets, which is often required to obtain research ethics approval for trials in the USA, is limited and cannot indicate how information will perform. Methods: An independent-groups design was used to study the user-testing performance of the participant information sheet from the phase I TGN1412 trial. Members of the public were asked to read it, then find and demonstrate understanding of 21 key aspects of the trial. The participant information sheet was then rewritten, redesigned and tested on 20 members of the public, using the same 21-item questionnaire. Results: On the original TGN1412 participant information sheet, participants could not find answers and some of the found information was not understood. Six of 21 questions, including those relating to placebo, follow-up visits and the emergency phone number, were found by eight or fewer of 10 participants. The revised information sheet performed better, with the answers to 17 of 21 questions found and understood by all 20 participants. Conclusions: Tests showed that the TGN1412 participant information sheet may not inform participants adequately for consent. Revising its content and design led to significant improvements. Writers of materials for trial participants should take account of good practice in information design. Performance-based user testing may be a useful method to indicate strengths and weaknesses in trial materials.

The 1990 GP contract — meeting needs?

This paper reviews the empirical evidence about the effects of the 1990 general practitioner (GP) contract on the provision of medical services in the United Kingdom. A brief outline of the major changes instigated by the 1990 GP contract is given. Studies of the implementation of the changes tend to focus on either trend analysis, cost-effectiveness or medical practice variation. These studies are reviewed and the implications for the efficiency of primary health care are discussed.

Explanations for variations in clopidogrel prescribing in England.

BACKGROUND The National Audit Office (NAO) has produced prescribing indicators that Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) can use to judge their performance. One of the indicators is for the antiplatelet clopidogrel, measured as defined daily dose (DDD) per cardiovascular Specific Therapeutic Age Related Prescribing Unit (STAR-PU). Clopidogrel is used as an indicator because it is a more expensive medicine than the alternative (aspirin) and there may be scope for cost reduction. We aimed to establish if the NAO indicator for clopidogrel prescribing is a valid measure of prescribing performance. METHODS Prescribing data for 152 PCTs and a range of explanatory variables were obtained. Correlation between variables was determined. A regression analysis was conducted to compare the dependent variable (prescribing) with the explanatory variables identified. RESULTS The percentage of patients on the coronary heart disease register and Index of Multiple Deprivation explained 30% of the variation in prescribing (DDD/STAR-PU) between PCTs. Even though DDD/STAR-PU is adjusted for age and sex other measures of need still have an impact on prescribing. CONCLUSIONS Using DDD/STAR-PU alone as a prescribing indicator might misidentify some PCTs, which are under- and over-using clopidogrel. Poor ranking against other PCTs using the NAO indicator should be fully explored taking into account other variables (cardiovascular morbidity and deprivation) before any corrective action is taken.