Search

Objectives: Written medicine information (WMI) is important for ensuring patients understand and use their medicines optimally, but relatively little research has assessed the quality of available WMI. This study assessed the quality of WMI using a sample of leaflets for ibuprofen in the UK and Thailand., Methods: Leaflets were obtained by purchasing a product from retail outlets or community pharmacies, 18 from each country. In the UK, these were patient information leaflets (PILs); in Thailand, they were package inserts PIs not specifically designed for patients. Leaflets were assessed for content, layout, and readability using standard methods and compared to relevant guidelines., Key Findings: The UK PILs were uniform and conformed to EU regulatory requirements for content, whereas Thai PIs varied considerably, many failing to include important information required by Thai regulations. Several forms of Thai PIs were found, including some very short leaflets, containing minimal information. The readability of both was rated as poor, all used small font size and had less than desirable white space. Fewer Thai PIs than UK PILs met the Keystone Criteria for ibuprofen., Conclusions: The extent of variation in format and content of Thai WMI could potentially cause confusion and reduce willingness to read it. PILs, conforming to Thai regulatory guidelines, should be provided with medicines instead. Leaflets in both countries would benefit from improved readability and layout., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Background: The 'Clinical Pharmacists in General Practice' (CPGP) pilot provided a template for general practice pharmacy professionals' (GPPPs) roles encouraging NHS England to fund >2000 practice-based pharmacists. However, many GPPPs work outside the CPGP initiative and little is known about the services they provide., Objectives: To explore services provided by all UK GPPPs (pharmacists/pharmacy technicians), including the types of services, perceived benefits and barriers to role development., Methods: A 26-item electronic questionnaire was developed using SurveyMonkey and piloted during cognitive interviews. A cross-sectional survey was conducted via social media, primary care organisations and emails to CPGP pilot sites between November 2018 and March 2019. Three reminders were sent 1 week apart., Key Findings: Ninety-one complete responses were received (81 pharmacists; 10 technicians). Over 80% of pharmacists provided clinical services, such as medication reviews or management of long-term conditions. More pharmacists within CPGP pilot managed repeat prescribing requests (P = 0.035). Technicians took responsibility for primarily non-clinical roles, including commissioning or safety alerts/drug recalls. A third of GPPPs wished to develop care home services. Perceived benefits of GPPPs' services included improved utilisation/development of professional skills, identifying medicines-related issues and reduction in medication waste. Respondents were satisfied with professional relationships but reported workload issues, limited patient awareness of their roles and restricted opportunities to contribute to service development, which was associated with unsatisfactory support/mentorship (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: General practice pharmacy professionals deliver clinical and non-clinical services which may benefit patients, general practice and the healthcare system. General practices and national organisations should provide GPPPs with tailored support and exploit the combined strengths of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to tackle increased workload., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To identify consultation tools cited in the published literature and undertake a narrative review which establishes their scope to support the delivery of person-centred medicine-focused consultations between community pharmacists and patients in the United Kingdom (UK)., Key Findings: Nine consultation tools used in a pharmacy context were identified. Four tools (Calgary-Cambridge guide, MRCF, MUR and NMS advanced services and PaCT) were selected for further appraisal. None of the tools identified provided a suitable format or sufficient guidance to address all components required for the delivery of a person-centred patient consultation in practice., Summary: Tools available to UK pharmacists are inadequate for fully supporting delivery of a person-centred consultation in practice. Revision of existing tools or creation of more pharmacy-specific tools will support UK pharmacists' delivery of person-centred consultations in practice., (© 2019 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Objective: This study aims to describe how pharmacists utilise and perceive delegation in the community setting., Method: Non-participant observations and semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of community pharmacists working in Kent between July and October 2011. Content analysis was undertaken to determine key themes and the point of theme saturation informed sample size. Findings from observations were also compared against those from interviews., Key Findings: Observations and interviews were undertaken with 11 pharmacists. Observations showed that delegation occurred in four different forms: assumed, active, partial and reverse. It was also employed to varying extents within the different pharmacies. Interviews revealed mixed views on delegation. Some pharmacists presented positive attitudes towards delegation while others were concerned about maintaining accountability for delegated tasks, particularly in terms of accuracy checking of dispensed medication. Other pharmacists noted the ability to delegate was not a skill they found inherently easy. Comparison of observation and interview data highlighted discrepancies between tasks pharmacists perceived they delegated and what they actually delegated., Conclusions: Effective delegation can potentially promote better management of workload to provide pharmacists with additional time to spend on cognitive pharmaceutical services. To do this, pharmacists' reluctance to delegate must be addressed. Lack of insight into own practice might be helped by self-reflection and feedback from staff. Also, a greater understanding of legal accountability in the context of delegation needs to be achieved. Finally, delegation is not just dependent on pharmacists, but also on support staff; ensuring staff are empowered and equipped to take on delegated roles is essential., (© 2015 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Objective: The objective was to identify, review and evaluate published literature on workloads of pharmacists in community pharmacy. It included identification of research involving the measurement of pharmacist workload and its impact on stress levels and job satisfaction. The review focused on literature relating to practice in the UK., Methods: Electronic databases were searched from 1995 to May 2011. In addition, manual searches were completed for documents not available electronically. The findings were analysed with specific focus on research methodology, workload and its impact on pharmacist job satisfaction and stress levels., Key Findings: Thirteen relevant studies relating to workload in community pharmacy alone or in conjunction with job satisfaction and stress were identified. One utilised both qualitative and quantitative methods to identify differences in pharmacist workload in retail pharmacy businesses before and after the implementation of the 2005 English and Welsh community pharmacy contractual framework. This indicated that pharmacists spend most of their working day dispensing. The majority of studies suggested community pharmacists generally perceived that workload levels were increasing. Several also stated that increased workload contributed to increasing job-related stress and decreasing job satisfaction. No studies reporting dispensing rates for community pharmacies in the UK were identified and there was limited evidence concerning time devoted to non-dispensing services. One study investigated the differences between self-estimated and actual workload., Conclusions: Whilst there is a clear perception that the type and amount of work output expected from individual community pharmacists has been changing and increasing over the last few decades, pharmacists are viewed as continuing to remain based in the dispensary. The impact of such changes to the practice of community pharmacy in the UK is poorly defined, although links have been made to increasing levels of pharmacist job dissatisfaction and stress., (© 2012 The Authors. IJPP © 2012 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)