To determine the use and perceived value of different information sources that patients may use to support identification of medicine side effects; to explore associations between coping styles and use of information sources.

Side effects from medicines can have considerable negative impact on peoples’ daily lives. As a result of an ageing UK population and attendant multi-morbidity, an increasing number of medicines are being prescribed for patients, leading to increased risk of unintended side effects.

A cross-sectional survey of patients who use medicine, recruited from community pharmacies. The survey sought views on attributes of various information sources, their predicted and actual use, incorporating a shortened Side Effects Coping Questionnaire (SECope) scale and the abbreviated Miller Behavioural Style Scale (MBSS).

Of 935 questionnaires distributed, 230 (25.0%) were returned, 61.3% from females; 44.7% were retired and 84.6% used at least one medicine regularly. 69.6% had experienced a side effect, resulting in 57.5% of these stopping the medicine. Patient information leaflets (PILs) and GPs were both predicted and actually most widely used sources, despite GPs being judged as relatively less accessible and PILs less trustworthy, particularly by regular medicine users. Pharmacists, considered both easy to access and trustworthy, were used by few in practice, while the internet was considered easy to access, but less trustworthy and was also little used. SECope sub-scales for non-adherence and information seeking showed positive associations with stopping a medicine and seeking information from a health professional. More high monitors than low monitors stopped a medicine themselves, but there were no differences in use of information sources. Information seeking following a side effect is a common strategy, potentially predicted by the SECope, but not the MBSS. Limited GP accessibility could contribute to high internet use. Further research could determine how the trustworthiness of PILs can be improved.

This study aimed to assess the consistency and replicability of these process measures during provision of the Italian Medicines Use Review (I-MUR).

Medication review is a common intervention provided by community pharmacists in many countries, but with little evidence of consistency and replicability. The I-MUR utilised a standardised question template in two separate large-scale studies. The template facilitated pharmacists in recording medicines and problems reported by patients, the pharmaceutical care issues (PCIs) they found and actions they took to improve medicines use.

Community pharmacists from four cities and across 15 regions were involved in the two studies. Patients included were adults with asthma. Medicines use, adherence, asthma problems, PCIs and actions taken by pharmacists were compared across studies to assess consistency and replicability of I-MUR.

The total number of pharmacists and patients completing the studies was 275 and 1711, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the studies in the following domains: patients’ demographic, patients’ perceived problems, adherence, asthma medicines used and healthy living advice provided by pharmacists. The proportion of patients in which pharmacists identified PCIs was similar across both studies. There were differences only in the incidence of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, the frequency of potential drug-disease interactions and in the types of advice given to patients and GPs.

The use of a standardised template for the I-MUR may have contributed to a degree of consistency in the issues found, which suggests this intervention could have good replicability.

This study aimed to explore community pharmacists’ roles on screening for risk factors, providing safety information-related non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to patients.

NSAIDs are widely dispensed without a prescription from pharmacies in Thailand, while they are frequently reported as causing adverse events.

Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to all accredited pharmacies in Thailand, inviting the main pharmacist in each pharmacy to participate in this study.

Out of 406 questionnaires distributed, 159 were returned (39.2%). Almost all pharmacists claimed to engage in NSAID dispensing practice, but not all of them provided relevant good practice, such as, screening for risk factors (56.3–95.5%), communication on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) (36.9–63.2%) and ADR management (58.9–79.7%), history of gastrointestinal (GI) problems was frequently mentioned for screening, but many pharmacists did not screen for history of NSAID use (24.7–35.5%), older age (45.2–48.9%), concomitant drug (63.7%), and problems of cardiovascular (24.1%), renal (34.9–43.3%), and liver systems (60.3–61.0%). Male pharmacists were significantly less likely to inform users of non-selective NSAIDs about ADRs [odds ratio (OR) 0.44], while provision of information about selective NSAID ADRs was higher among pharmacy owners (OR 2.28), pharmacies with more pharmacists (OR 3.18), and lower in pharmacies with assistants (OR 0.41). Screening for risk factors, and risk communication about NSAIDs were not generally conducted in Thai accredited community pharmacists, nor were NSAID complications fully communicated. Promoting of community pharmacists’ roles in NSAID dispensing should give priority to improving, especially in high-risk patients for taking NSAIDs.

To examine how patient perspectives and person-centred care values have been represented in documents on medicines optimisation policy in England.

There has been growing support in England for a policy of medicines optimisation as a response to the rise of problematic polypharmacy. Conceptually, medicines optimisation differs from the medicines management model of prescribing in being based around the patient rather than processes and systems. This critical examination of current official and independent policy documents questions how central the patient is in them and whether relevant evidence has been utilised in their development.

A documentary analysis of reports on medicines optimisation published by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS), The King’s Fund and National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence since 2013. The analysis draws on a non-systematic review of research on patient experiences of using medicines.

The reports varied in their inclusion of patient perspectives and person-centred care values, and in the extent to which they drew on evidence from research on patients’ experiences of polypharmacy and medicines use. In the RPS report, medicines optimisation is represented as being a ‘step change’ from medicines management, in contrast to the other documents which suggest that it is facilitated by the systems and processes that comprise the latter model. Only The King’s Fund report considered evidence from qualitative studies of people’s use of medicines. However, these studies are not without their limitations.

We suggest five ways in which researchers could improve this evidence base and so inform the development of future policy: by facilitating reviews of existing research; conducting studies of patient experiences of polypharmacy and multimorbidity; evaluating medicines optimisation interventions; making better use of relevant theories, concepts and tools; and improving patient and public involvement in research and in guideline development.

To evaluate NHS Health Check implementation in terms of frequency of data recording, advice provided, referrals to community-based lifestyle support services, statin prescribing and new diagnoses, and to assess variation in these aspects between practices and health professionals involved in delivery.

Most NHS Health Checks are delivered by general practices, but little detail is known about the extent of variation in how they are delivered in different practices and by different health professionals.

This was an observational study conducted in a purposively selected sample of 13 practices in Sefton, North West England. Practices used previously recorded information from their clinical management systems to identify patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk ⩾20%, a potentially cost-effective approach. The evaluation was conducted during the first year of delivery in Sefton. Data were extracted from medical records of all patients identified, regardless of Health Check attendance.

Of the 2892 patients identified by the 13 practices, 1070 had received an NHS Health Check at the time of the study. Of these, only 936 (87.5%) had a recorded CVD risk score, with risk ⩾20% confirmed in 92.0%. Estimated risk category was correct in 456/677 (67.4%) of patients with estimated and actual risk scores.

Significant variation was found between practices and health professionals in parameters recorded, tests requested, advice given and referrals for lifestyle support. Only 45.3% of patients had body mass index, smoking, alcohol, exercise, blood pressure and cholesterol all recorded.

Lifestyle advice and referral into lifestyle services were documented in 80.6% and 6.4% of attenders, respectively, again with significant variation between practices and professionals. Statin prescribing rose in attenders from 19.6% to 34.6%. A similar proportion of attenders and non-attenders received new diagnoses.

Effort is required to reduce variation in how practices deliver and follow-up NHS Health Checks, to ensure the consistency of the programme.

To determine Citizen's Advice Bureaux (CAB) and general practice staff perceptions on the impact of a CAB Health Outreach (CABHO) service on staff workload. To quantify the frequency of mental health issues among patients referred to the CABHO service. To measure any impact of the CABHO service on appointments, referrals and prescribing for mental health.

GPs and practice managers perceive that welfare rights services, provided by CAB, reduce practice staff workload, but this has not been quantified.

Interviews with practice managers and GPs hosting and CAB staff providing an advisory service in nine general practices. Comparison of frequency of GP and nurse appointments, mental health referrals and prescriptions for hypnotics/anxiolytics and antidepressants issued before and after referral to the CABHO service, obtained from medical records of referred patients.

Most GPs and CAB staff perceived the service reduced practice staff workload, although practice managers were less certain. CAB staff believed that many patients referred to them had mental health issues. Data were obtained for 148/250 referrals of whom 46% may have had a mental health issue. There were statistically significant reductions in the number of GP appointments and prescriptions for hypnotics/anxiolytics during the six months after referral to CABHO compared with six months before. There were also non-significant reductions in nurse appointments and prescriptions for antidepressants, but no change in appointments or referrals for mental health problems. The quantitative findings therefore confirmed perceptions among both CAB and practice staff of reduced workload and in addition suggest that prescribing may be reduced, although further larger-scale studies are required to confirm this.