Medicines non-use in primary care

This study expands the current knowledge base on the nature, causes and fate of unused medicines in primary care. Three methodologies were used and participants for each element were sampled from the population of Eastern Birmingham PCT. A detailed assessment was made of medicines returned to pharmacies and GP surgeries for destruction and a postal questionnaire covering medicines use and disposal was used to patients randomly selected from the electoral roll. The content of this questionnaire was informed by qualitative data from a group interview on the subject. By use of these three methods it was possible to triangulate the data, providing a comprehensive assessment of unused medicines. Unused medicines were found to be ubiquitous in primary care and cardiovascular, diabetic and respiratory medicines are unused in substantial quantities, accounting for a considerable proportion of the total financial value of all unused medicines. Additionally, analgesic and psychoactive medicines were highlighted as being unused in sufficient quantities for concern. Anti-infective medicines also appear to be present and unused in a substantial proportion of patients’ homes. Changes to prescribed therapy and non-compliance were identified as important factors leading to the generation of unused medicines. However, a wide array of other elements influence the quantities and types of medicines that are unused including the concordancy of GP consultations and medication reviews and patient factors such as age, sex or ethnicity. Medicines were appropriately discarded by 1 in 3 patients through return to a medical or pharmaceutical establishment. Inappropriate disposal was by placing in household refuse or through grey and black water with the possibility of hoarding or diversion also being identified. No correlations wre found between the weight of unused medicines and any clinical or financial factor. The study has highlighted unused medicines to be an issue of some concern and one that requires further study

Emergency supply of prescription-only medicines to patients by community pharmacists: a mixed methods evaluation incorporating patient, pharmacist and GP perspectives

Objective To evaluate and inform emergency supply of prescription-only medicines by community pharmacists (CPs), including how the service could form an integral component of established healthcare provision to maximise adherence. Design Mixed methods. 4 phases: prospective audit of emergency supply requests for prescribed medicines (October–November 2012 and April 2013); interviews with CPs (February–April 2013); follow-up interviews with patients (April–May 2013); interactive feedback sessions with general practice teams (October–November 2013). Setting 22 community pharmacies and 6 general practices in Northwest England. Participants 27 CPs with experience of dealing with requests for emergency supplies; 25 patients who received an emergency supply of a prescribed medicine; 58 staff at 6 general practices. Results Clinical audit in 22 pharmacies over two 4-week periods reported that 526 medicines were requested by 450 patients. Requests peaked over a bank holiday and around weekends. A significant number of supplies were made during practice opening hours. Most requests were for older patients and for medicines used in long-term conditions. Difficulty in renewing repeat medication (forgetting to order, or prescription delays) was the major reason for requests. The majority of medicines were ‘loaned’ in advance of a National Health Service (NHS) prescription. Interviews with CPs and patients indicated that continuous supply had a positive impact on medicines adherence, removing the need to access urgent care. General practice staff were surprised and concerned by the extent of emergency supply episodes. Conclusions CPs regularly provide emergency supplies to patients who run out of their repeat medication, including during practice opening hours. This may aid adherence. There is currently no feedback loop, however, to general practice. Patient care and interprofessional communication may be better served by the introduction of a formally structured and funded NHS emergency supply service from community pharmacies, with ongoing optimisation of repeat prescribing

Cross?sectional survey of patients’ need for information and support with medicines after discharge from hospital

Background: Most patients experience changes to prescribed medicines during a hospital stay. Ensuring they understand such changes is important for preventing adverse events post-discharge and optimising patient understanding. However, little work has explored the information that patients receive about medicines or their perceived needs for information and support after discharge. Aim: To determine information that hospital in-patients who experience medicines changes receive about their medicines during admission and their needs and preferences for, and use of, post-discharge support. Methods: Cross-sectional survey with adult medical in-patients experiencing medicines changes in six English hospitals, with telephone follow-up 2-3 weeks post-discharge. Results: A total of 444 in-patients completed surveys and 99 of these were followed-up post-discharge. Of the 444, 44 (10%) were unaware of changes to medicines and 65 (16%) did not recall discussing them with a health professional, but 305 (77%) reported understanding the changes. Type of information provided and patients’ perceived need for post-discharge support differed between hospitals. Information about changes was most frequently provided by consultant medical staff (157; 39%) with pharmacists providing information least often (71; 17%). One-third of patients surveyed considered community pharmacists as potential sources of information about medicines and associated support post-discharge. Post-discharge, just 5% had spoken to a pharmacist, although 35% reported medicines-related problems. Conclusion: In North-West England, patient inclusion in treatment decisions could be improved, but provision of information prior to discharge is reasonable. There is scope to develop hospital and community pharmacists’ role in medicines optimisation to maximise safety and effectiveness of care

An analysis of returned medicines in primary care

Objective: The number of pharmaceutical items issued on prescription is continually rising and contributing to spiralling healthcare costs. Although there is some data highlighting the quantity, in terms of weight of medicines returned specifically to community pharmacies, little is known about the specific details of such returns or other destinations for wasted medications. This pilot study has been designed to investigate the types and amounts of medicines returned to both general practices (GPs) and associated local community pharmacies determining the reasons why these medicines have been returned. Method: The study was conducted in eight community pharmacies and five GP surgeries within East Birmingham over a 4-week period. Main outcome Measure: Reason for return and details of returned medication. Results: A total of 114 returns were made during the study: 24 (21.1) to GP surgeries and 90 (78.9) to community pharmacies. The total returns comprised 340 items, of which 42 (12.4) were returned to GPs and 298 (87.6) to pharmacies, with the mean number of items per return being 1.8 and 3.3, respectively. Half of the returns in the study were attributed to the doctor changing or stopping the medicine; 23.7 of returns were recorded as excess supplies or clearout often associated with patients' death and 3.5 of returns were related to adverse drug reactions. Cardiovascular drugs were most commonly returned, amounting to 28.5 of the total drugs returned during the study. Conclusions: The results from this pilot study indicate that unused medicines impose a significant financial burden on the National Health Service as well as a social burden on the United Kingdom population. Further studies are examining the precise nature of returned medicines and possible solutions to these issues. © Springer 2005

Medicines non-use in primary care

This study expands the current knowledge base on the nature, causes and fate of unused medicines in primary care. Three methodologies were used and participants for each element were sampled from the population of Eastern Birmingham PCT. A detailed assessment was made of medicines returned to pharmacies and GP surgeries for destruction and a postal questionnaire covering medicines use and disposal was used to patients randomly selected from the electoral roll. The content of this questionnaire was informed by qualitative data from a group interview on the subject. By use of these three methods it was possible to triangulate the data, providing a comprehensive assessment of unused medicines. Unused medicines were found to be ubiquitous in primary care and cardiovascular, diabetic and respiratory medicines are unused in substantial quantities, accounting for a considerable proportion of the total financial value of all unused medicines. Additionally, analgesic and psychoactive medicines were highlighted as being unused in sufficient quantities for concern. Anti-infective medicines also appear to be present and unused in a substantial proportion of patients’ homes. Changes to prescribed therapy and non-compliance were identified as important factors leading to the generation of unused medicines. However, a wide array of other elements influence the quantities and types of medicines that are unused including the concordancy of GP consultations and medication reviews and patient factors such as age, sex or ethnicity. Medicines were appropriately discarded by 1 in 3 patients through return to a medical or pharmaceutical establishment. Inappropriate disposal was by placing in household refuse or through grey and black water with the possibility of hoarding or diversion also being identified.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Pharmacy support staff involvement in, and attitudes towards, pharmacy-based services for drug misusers

Objective: This study aimed to examine involvement of pharmacy support staff in delivering services to drug misusers; to quantify their participation in related training; and to examine relationships between attitudes, practice experience and training. Methods: The setting was a random sample of 10% of UK community pharmacies (n = 1218) using a postal questionnaire with two reminders. Pharmacy managers were used as gate-keepers to access pharmacy support staff, which included dispensary technicians and medicines counter assistants. Key findings: Six hundred and ninety (56.7%) pharmacies responded, and 1976 completed questionnaires were returned from 610 (50.1%) pharmacies. A further 80 (6.6%) opted out. Three-fifths of staff had no input into decisions about whether their pharmacy provided services for drug misusers. One-third working in pharmacies that provide services were uncertain or negative about whether their pharmacy should do so. Staff were more involved in needle exchange (91%) and decisions to sell needles (95%) than supervising consumption of therapies (64%) or handing out dispensed medicines to drug misusers (73%), suggesting managers perceive needle exchange and sales as appropriate roles. Three-quarters of those working in pharmacies that provide services had not received any training to do so. Those who had undertaken training and who worked in pharmacies that provided services had significantly more positive attitudes compared to those had not undertaken training but also worked in pharmacies that provided services, or those who had undertaken training but did not provide services. Conclusions: Pharmacy support staff were involved extensively in drug-misuse services but the majority had not been trained to do so. Attitudes were more positive in those who were involved in service provision and had undertaken training. The findings suggest a need for more extensive training and for further exploration of the views of managers on appropriate roles, particularly the clinical versus supply nature of needle exchange. This is timely given the recent publication of guidelines by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) on needle exchange