Doctors' and pharmacists' attitudes to the use of sugar‐free and sugar‐containing medicines in the elderly

Background — Much progress has been made towards the prescribing and dispensing of sugar‐free alternatives for medicines used long‐term in children. However, older people may also take sugar‐containing medicines and those with natural teeth are at risk of dental caries. Objective — To assess the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals with regard to the use of sugar‐free medicines with prolonged oral clearance in elderly people. Method — Postal questionnaire survey of three groups of health professionals (general practitioners, community pharmacists, consultant geriatricians). Statistical analysis using factor analysis, Mann Whitney U test and Kruskal Wallis test. Setting — Five districts of north‐east England. Key findings — The overall response rate was 66 per cent (349 responses). Support for the use of sugar‐free medicines was greater among GPs than pharmacists (P=0.014). There was general agreement that, wherever possible, pharmacists should dispense sugar‐free medicines for elderly people, although more GPs (P<0.0001) and consultant geriatricians (P=0.024) agreed than pharmacists. More pharmacists than GPs believed sugar‐free medicines to be more expensive although there was general uncertainty about whether this deters doctors and pharmacists from using them. There was a good understanding of the role of sugars in medicines in the aetiology of dental disease, although respondents felt that elderly people were unaware of this link. Only 51 per cent of respondents agreed that government should subsidise sugar‐free medicines production. Ninety‐four per cent felt that the pharmaceutical industry should produce more sugar‐free products. Conclusion — Although there is support for the sugar‐free option, there is a need to raise the awareness of health professionals to barriers which currently discourage utilisation, and to encourage a more multi‐professional approach in the education of health professionals, health care providers, manufacturers and regulators with regard to sugar control in medicines use and related regulatory issues.     

The development and evaluation of an extended adherence support programme by community pharmacists for elderly patients at home

Objective —To devise, implement and evaluate a medication adherence support service by community pharmacists for elderly patients living at home and at risk of non‐adherence. Method — Six community pharmacists identified patients who were 65 years of age and older, prescribed four or more regular medicines and living alone. A random sample of patients was visited at home and assessed for adherence‐related problems using a structured interview. The pharmacist then drew up an action plan in conjunction with the patient and general practitioner (GP), and returned for a second home visit, where the revised regime was delivered and explained. A self‐reported adherence questionnaire was also administered. After two months an independent researcher visited the patients at home to assess progress. Setting — Six community pharmacies in the city of Leeds, UK, and patients' homes. Key findings — A total of 143 patients were recruited and 441 medicine‐related problems were identified. Of these, 241 (55 per cent) required the provision of information and advice, 106 (24 per cent) required consultation with the GP and 86 (20 per cent) required changes in the presentation of the medicines. The median number of regular prescribed medicines fell from six to five (P<0.001). Overall, there was a reduction in the number of patients with one or more problems from 94 per cent to 58 per cent (P<0.001). The proportion of patients who reported non‐adherence fell from 38 per cent to 14 per cent (P<0.001). Conclusion — This study shows that community pharmacists can target patients at risk of medication non‐adherence and, using a structured approach, identify problems and implement solutions. The pharmacy patient medication record is an underutilised tool for identifying patients with adherence problems. The software needs enhancing to enable pharmacists to maximise their use of these records in adherence support. An adherence support programme needs to take more account of intentional non‐adherence and should be closely linked with the rest of the primary health care team.     

Over‐the‐counter ibuprofen: how and why is it used?

Objectives — To pilot an over‐the‐counter (OTC) medicine pharmacovigilance project, using ibuprofen as a model. Method — All users of any tablet or capsule form of ibuprofen (excluding compound products) purchased from 61 participating community pharmacies, aged ≥18 years and able to give informed consent, were eligible to join the study. A postal questionnaire one week after the index purchase monitored the follow‐up rate, drug usage, past medical history, concurrent medication, symptoms and health service utilisation. Setting — Primary care: community pharmacies in Grampian, Scotland. Key findings — A total of 443/544 (81 per cent) questionnaires were completed. The recommended daily dose of OTC ibuprofen (1,200mg) was exceeded by 35 customers (8 per cent) on at least one day and the recommended maximum daily dose that can be prescribed by a physician (2,400mg) was exceeded on five occasions. During the seven days after the index purchase, ibuprofen was used by 15 customers (4 per cent) with an active or past history of peptic ulcer, and 30 (7 per cent) with an active or past history of asthma. Thirty‐eight per cent had purchased ibuprofen for a chronic condition and 32 per cent were still taking it at the end of the initial seven‐day period. Twenty‐eight of 412 customers (7 per cent) sought advice during the seven‐day period about at least one symptom: 13 consulted their general practitioner, 12 consulted a pharmacist, two consulted both their GP and a pharmacist, and one consulted a hospital doctor. Some of these consultations (23/28, 82 per cent) might have related to an adverse reaction to ibuprofen: 11 customers (3 per cent) consulted about lower abdominal symptoms, nine about gastric symptoms and three about wheeziness. Conclusions — This pilot study identifies instances of contraindicated and excessive use of OTC ibuprofen, indicating a need for pharmacovigilance studies of OTC medicines; it also demonstrates the feasibility of a major study.     

Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients on repeat medications in general practice — pharmacist interventions and review outcomes

Objectives — To describe the nature and rate of interventions made by a pharmacist conducting clinical medication reviews in general practice. Method — Patients, randomly allocated to the intervention group, in a randomised controlled trial of 1,188 patients, were invited to a pharmacist‐conducted medication review clinic at their general practice. Patients were seen over one year from June 1, 1999, to May 31, 2000. In the consultation an assessment was made of the patient, their clinical conditions and medication. Consultation outcomes for each patient and intervention outcomes for each medicine were evaluated. Setting — Patients were recruited from four randomly selected general practices in Leeds, UK. Patients were eligible if aged 65 years or over and on at least one repeat medicine. Key findings — Consultations were held with 590 patients in the intervention group (97 per cent). A recommendation for change was made in 44 per cent (258/591) of consultations. The most common outcome was a change in medication: 29 per cent of consultations (170/591). Doctor referral occurred for 28 patients (5 per cent) and nurse referral for 25 (4 per cent). Study patients were recorded as taking 2,927 repeat medications (mode of two per patient). Interventions were made for 21 per cent of medications (603). Clinically related interventions accounted for 71 per cent (430/603). Recommendations were spread evenly across therapy groups. At the study end, 90 per cent (433/484) of recommendations remained implemented. Conclusion — A pharmacist who clinically reviewed elderly patients, their conditions and their medications, intervened in nearly half the patients. The pharmacist was able to implement most interventions without referring the patient to a doctor or nurse.     

Community pharmacists' views and experiences of counter-prescribing in pregnancy

Objective — To ascertain the sources of community pharmacists' knowledge base for counter-prescribing in pregnancy, whether sufficient additional information was readily accessible and, if not, to discover pharmacists' areas of concern. Method — A structured telephone interview of community pharmacists by a single researcher using a pre-piloted questionnaire to obtain both quantitative and qualitative data. Questions covered previous education about counter-prescribing in pregnancy, reference sources used, and satisfaction with available reference sources. Respondents were also asked to cite examples where they would or would not recommend a medicine in pregnancy. Setting — A random sample of 50 community pharmacies in Scotland. Key findings — From the high response rate (43 pharmacists, 86 per cent) the topic was demonstrably important to community pharmacists, most of whom perceived their knowledge base for counter-prescribing in pregnancy to be experience-gained. Thirty-four pharmacists (79 per cent) agreed there was a need for more information to be available. Ten pharmacists (23 per cent) highlighted complementary therapies as an area where they found available information inadequate. Examples of requests from pregnant women and the action taken by the pharmacist are reported. Conclusion — There is a need for an accurate, current and comprehensive data source for counter-prescribing in pregnancy. The field of complementary medicines and therapies is of particular concern to many community pharmacists. More research is required into GP referrals.     

Public perceptions of community pharmacists in Benin City,Nigeria

Objective — To determine public perceptions of community pharmacists and pharmacies in Benin City, Nigeria. Method — A self‐completion questionnaire was distributed to a stratified random sample of 1,500 households. Data were collected using a 22‐item, Likert‐type scale which was shown to have 0.77 reliability. The neutral point was assumed to be 66 on the scale of 22 to 110. Scores above 66 were interpreted as positive perception. Results — The response rate was 68.3 per cent (1,025/1500). Almost two‐thirds (64 per cent) of respondents perceived the community pharmacist as a health care provider, and 70 per cent agreed that community pharmacists are needed, especially in the area of medicinal product selection (76 per cent). However, 52 per cent believed pharmacists are profit motivated and only 43 per cent said they would be willing to pay for pharmacist consultation. Respondents reported difficulty in differentiating between pharmacists and pharmacy attendants, with only 58 per cent reporting that they could tell the difference. The pharmacists scored 76.37 ± 27.63, with 60 per cent of respondents scoring them above 66. Conclusion — This study found that community pharmacists received a moderately positive rating from the public. There is a need for community pharmacists to carve out a more distinct professional identity for themselves.     

Pharmaceutical needs assessment in general practice

Objective — To develop a method of prioritising the need for pharmaceutical input into a general practice. Method — An adaptation of health needs assessment methodology was used to study areas of potential pharmacist input into a practice. Prescribing data, information from the practice's computer system and medical records were used to identify the practice's needs for pharmacist input and changes to practice. Interviews with practice staff and direct observation were used to obtain information on current systems and suggestions for change. A summary of the needs identified and suggestions for change were used in a prioritisation process. Setting — One UK general medical practice. Key findings — The study identified the need for improvements to the repeat prescribing system, a greater agreement between practice partners on the use of a practice formulary and treatment protocols, and regular review and improved monitoring of patients taking long‐term medication. Among patients taking repeat medication, those aged 45 or over and those taking four or more medicines were found to be at greatest risk of having potential pharmaceutical care issues which needed to be addressed. The prioritisation process resulted in pharmacist input into maintaining registers of patients taking drugs with narrow therapeutic indexes, reviewing the practice's computer‐based formulary and undertaking medication review being considered of highest priority by medical staff. Conclusion — The method enabled the identification of many areas which could benefit from pharmacist input and the prioritisation of these to plan future work.