Enhancing provision of written medicine information in Australia: Pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer perceptions of the barriers and facilitators

Background: Written medicine information can play an important role in educating consumers about their medicines. In Australia, standardised, comprehensive written information known as Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) is available for all prescription medicines. CMI is reportedly under-utilised by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists in consultations, despite consumer desire for medicine information. This study aimed to determine consumers', GPs' and community pharmacists' preferences for CMI provision and identify barriers and facilitators to its use. Method. Structured questionnaires were developed and administered to a national sample of Australian consumers (phone survey), community pharmacists and GPs (postal surveys) surrounding utilisation of CMI. Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted. Results: Half of consumers surveyed wanted to receive CMI for their prescription medicine, with spoken information preferable to written medicine information for many consumers and healthcare professionals. GPs and pharmacists remained a preferred source of medicine information for consumers, although package inserts were appealing to many among all three cohorts. Overall pharmacists were the preferred provider of CMI primarily due to their medicine expertise, accessibility and perceived availability. GPs preferred CMI dissemination through both the GP and pharmacist. Some consumers preferred GPs as the provider of medicines information because of their knowledge of the patients' medicines and/or medical history, regularity of seeing the patient and good relationship with the patient. Common barriers to CMI provision cited included: time constraints, CMI length and perceptions that patients are not interested in receiving CMI. Facilitators to enhance provision included: strategies to increase consumer awareness, longer consultation times and counseling appointments, and improvements to pharmacy software technology and workflow. Conclusion: Medicine information is important to consumers, whether as spoken, written or a combination of both. A tailored approach is needed to ascertain individual patient preference for delivery and scope of medicine information desired so that appropriate information is provided. The barriers of time and perceived attitudes of healthcare practitioners present challenges which may be overcome through changes to workplace practices, adoption of identified facilitators, and education about the positive benefits of CMI as a tool to engage and empower patients

Avoiding Treatment Interruptions: What Role Do Australian Community Pharmacists Play?

OBJECTIVE: To explore the reported practice of Australian community pharmacists when dealing with medication supply requests in absence of a valid prescription. METHODS: Self-administered questionnaire was posted to 1490 randomly selected community pharmacies across all Australian states and territories. This sample was estimated to be a 20% of all Australian community pharmacies. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty five pharmacists participated in the study (response rate achieved was 27.9% (there were 111 undelivered questionnaires). Respondents indicated that they were more likely to provide medications to regular customers without a valid prescription compared to non-regular customers (p<0.0001). However, supply was also influenced by the type of prescription and the medication requested. In the case of type of prescription (Standard, Authority or Private) this relates to the complexity/probability of obtaining a valid prescription from the prescriber at a later date (i.e. supply with an anticipated prescription). Decisions to supply and/or not supply related to medication type were more complex. For some cases, including medication with potential for abuse, the practice and/or the method of supply varied significantly according to age and gender of the pharmacist, and pharmacy location (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although being a regular customer does not guarantee a supply, results of this study reinforce the importance for patients having a regular pharmacy, where pharmacists were more likely to continue medication supply in cases of patients presenting without a valid prescription. We would suggest, more flexible legislation should be implemented to allow pharmacists to continue supplying of medication when obtaining a prescription is not practical

A Comparative Exploration of Community Pharmacists' Views on the Nature and Management of Over-the-Counter (OTC) and Prescription Codeine Misuse in Three Regulatory Regimes: Ireland, South Africa and the United Kingdom

Misuse of codeine containing preparations is a public health concern given the potential for associated harms and dependence. This study explores the perspectives of community pharmacists in three regulatory regimes on issues of customer misuse of over-the-counter (OTC) and prescribed codeine. A qualitative design comprising six focus groups (n = 45) was conducted in Ireland, United Kingdom, South Africa. Transcripts were analysed using the constant comparative method of content analysis. Pharmacists described popular codeine-containing products and the need for improved medicine information and warning labels. Issues around legitimate availability of codeine and regulatory status; presence of therapeutic need; difficulties in customer–pharmacist communication; business environments and retail focus were raised. Participants also discussed how they identified customers potentially misusing codeine and difficulties in relationships between pharmacists and prescribers. A number of recommendations were put forward as ways to manage the issues. The study highlights the difficulties encountered by community pharmacists operating under various regulatory regimes when supplying codeine containing preparations in negotiating patient awareness and compliance and potential ways to deal with misuse and dependence

Pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer use of written medicine information in Australia: Are they on the same page?

Background: Providing written medicine information to consumers enables them to make informed decisions about their medicines, playing an important role in educating and improving health literacy. In Australia, standardized written medicine information called Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) is available for medicines as package inserts, computer prints, or leaflets. Consumers want and read CMI, but may not always ask for it. General practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists are an important source of written medicine information, yet may not always provide CMI in their practice. Objective: To examine and compare the awareness, use and provision of CMI by consumers, pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs). Methods: Based on previous studies, structured questionnaires were developed and administered to a national sample of consumers (phone survey); community pharmacists and GPs (postal surveys) about utilization of CMI. Descriptive, comparative and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: The respondents comprised of 349 pharmacists, 181 GPs and 1000 consumers. Two-thirds of consumers, nearly all (99%) pharmacists and 90% of GPs were aware of CMI. About 88% of consumers reported receiving CMI as a package insert, however most pharmacists (99%) and GPs (56%) reported providing computer-generated CMI. GPs' and pharmacists' main reason for providing CMI was on patient request. Reasons for not providing were predominantly because consumers were already taking the medicine, concerns regarding difficulty understanding the information, or potential non-adherence. Of the 691 consumers reportedly reading CMI, 35% indicated concerns after reading. Factors associated with reading included gender, type of CMI received and frequency of provision. Conclusion: Consumers want and read information about their medicines, especially when received from their GP or pharmacist. Healthcare professionals report usually discussing CMI when providing it to patients, although continued improvements in dissemination rates are desirable. Regular use of CMI remains a challenge, and ongoing strategies to promote CMI use are necessary to improve uptake of CMI in Australia

Evaluation of a home medicines review program at an Aboriginal Medical Service in the Northern Territory

© 2019 The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia Background: The home medicines review (HMR) program aims to achieve quality use of medicines. In 2009, the model of HMR provision at Danila Dilba Health Service (DDHS) in Darwin was adjusted to include the services of a dedicated consultant pharmacist and an expanded role for an Aboriginal Health Worker (AHW) in the HMR process. Aim: This study evaluated a unique program providing HMRs to Indigenous clients of DDHS. Methods: A retrospective review of HMRs was conducted for clients at DDHS between December 2009 and December 2010 to determine relevant time frames between HMR activities, reasons for referral, issues identified by the pharmacist, education provided, recommendations and uptake of recommendations. Awareness and attitudes to the program among general practitioners (GPs), AHWs, and pharmacists were also evaluated using a self-administered questionnaire. Results: Sixty-four HMRs were conducted. Thirty-nine (61%) follow-up appointments were documented and 30 Medicare claims made. The average time between referral and follow-up was 66 days. For most HMRs, more than one reason for referral was identified. In all, 348 issues were identified, 256 educational activities undertaken and 379 recommendations made. Fifty-two per cent of recommendations were implemented. Attitudes to the HMR program were positive. Common themes included the importance of cultural safety, particularly the inclusion of an AHW in HMR activities and difficulties associated with the follow-up of patients. Conclusion: Uptake of recommendations for improvements in the quality of documentation, GP follow-up and the referral system will enhance the HMR service at DDHS

It’s for your benefit: exploring patients’ opinions about the inclusion of textual and numerical benefit information in medicine leaflets

Objectives: To explore consumers’ beliefs and preferences for benefit information in medicine leaflets and examine their understanding and reaction to treatment benefits. Methods: Forty-five participants were recruited to eight focus groups, run concurrently in Australia (23 participants in four groups) and the UK (22 participants in four groups). Participants were provided with amended leaflets based on the medicine clopidogrel, containing textual and numerical benefit information presented using numbers needed to treat (NNT). A topic guide which explored use of leaflets, preferences and opinions was used to direct discussion. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and content analysed using adapted cross-case study analysis. Key findings: The consensus was that the inclusion of benefit information was a positive factor. Many participants felt that textual benefit information offered an incentive to take a medicine, although some Australian participants had concerns that included benefit information could create anxiety. The presentation of numerical benefit information provoked strong feelings of disbelief and shock. Participants were surprised that so few people would benefit. Some participants struggled to understand and interpret the NNT and others found it difficult to comprehend the magnitude of the benefit information, instead operating on initial and often crude assumptions of what the data meant. In both countries the provision of numerical benefit information appeared to shake participants’ faith in drug treatments. Participants were concerned about how this might affect the ‘less-informed’ patient. However, in the UK, participants stated that their adherence to treatment was also reinforced by their doctor’s advice. Conclusions: Participants wanted to receive information about the benefits of their medicines. However, they may misinterpret the numerical information provided

Consumer opinions on adverse events associated with medicines and vaccines

Parisa Aslani,1 Kim Hamrosi,1 Vivien Tong,1 Timothy F Chen,1 Jane Cook,2 Romano Fois,1 Theresa McGarry,3 Carter Moore,4 Rodney Peters,5 Sarah Spagnardi,6 Karen Whitelock7 1Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia; 2Therapeutic Goods Administration, Canberra, ACT, Australia; 3Celgene Pty Ltd., Southbank, VIC, Australia; 4Consumers Health Forum of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia; 5Pharmacovigilant Consultant, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 6NPS MedicineWise, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 7Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Ltd., Sydney, NSW, Australia Introduction: Despite the availability of an Australian consumer adverse event (AE) reporting system for over 50 years, reporting rates remain low. A comprehensive understanding of consumer perceptions and experiences regarding AEs is needed to further ascertain factors impacting their engagement in AE reporting. Aim: The aim of this study was to explore consumer opinions about AEs potentially associated with medicines and vaccines, and their experiences and understanding of managing and reporting AEs. Methods: Six focus groups were conducted across metropolitan Sydney with a total of 48 adult participants. A semi-structured focus group topic guide was developed to explore consumers’ understanding, experiences, and actions taken in relation to AEs; and perspectives on managing treatment benefits and harms. Discussions were audio-recorded with participant permission and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. Results: Consumers acknowledged the potential for side effects (SEs), however inaccurately estimated SE risk in response to verbal descriptors such as “common.” Consumer appraisal of treatment benefits and harms was influenced by factors such as medical condition(s), previous experiences, and beliefs. Although many had experienced SEs, consumers only reported them if considered severe or troublesome. Minimal awareness of consumer AE reporting systems was evident. Doctors were the primary avenue for reporting; consumers preferred doctors to act as the intermediary in reporting AEs to an independent body. Conclusion: Consumers’ lack of awareness of AE reporting systems was evident. With the complexities inherent in benefit/harm risk appraisal, information seeking, and AE reporting preferences, better consumer understanding of AEs and the systems available for reporting is needed. Keywords: patient, reporting, side effects, qualitative, focus groups, drugs, vaccine