How can community pharmacists be supported to manage skin conditions? A multistage stakeholder research prioritisation exercise.

OBJECTIVE: To establish research priorities which will support the development and delivery of community pharmacy initiatives for the management of skin conditions. DESIGN: An iterative, multistage stakeholder consultation consisting of online survey, participant workshops and prioritisation meeting. SETTING: All data collection took place online with participants completing a survey (delivered via the JISC Online Survey platform, between July 2021 and January 2022) and participating in online workshops and meetings (hosted on Microsoft Teams between April and July 2022). PARTICIPANTS: 174 community pharmacists and pharmacy staff completed the online survey.53 participants participated in the exploratory workshops (19 community pharmacists, 4 non-pharmacist members of pharmacy staff and 30 members of the public). 4 healthcare professionals who were unable to attend a workshop participated in a one-to-one interview.29 participants from the workshops took part in the prioritisation meeting (5 pharmacists/pharmacy staff, 1 other healthcare professional and 23 members of the public). RESULTS: Five broad areas of potential research need were identified in the online survey: (1) identifying and diagnosing skin conditions; (2) skin conditions in skin of colour; (3) when to refer skin conditions; (4) disease-specific concerns and (5) product-specific concerns.These were explored and refined in the workshops to establish 10 potential areas for research, which will support pharmacists in managing skin conditions. These were ranked in the prioritisation meeting. Among those prioritised were topics which consider how pharmacists work with other healthcare professionals to identify and manage skin conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Survey responses and stakeholder workshops all recognised the potential for community pharmacists to play an active role in the management of common skin conditions. Future research may support this in the generation of resources for pharmacists, in encouraging public take-up of pharmacy services, and in evaluating the most effective provision for dealing with skin conditions.

Scaling-up a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER) to reduce hazardous prescribing in general practices: Multiple interrupted time series study.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported on a randomised trial demonstrating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER). We sought to investigate whether PINCER was effective in reducing hazardous prescribing when rolled out at scale in UK general practices. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a multiple interrupted time series design whereby successive groups of general practices received the PINCER intervention between September 2015 and April 2017. We used 11 prescribing safety indicators to identify potentially hazardous prescribing and collected data over a maximum of 16 quarterly time periods. The primary outcome was a composite of all the indicators; a composite for indicators associated with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding was also reported, along with 11 individual indicators of hazardous prescribing. Data were analysed using logistic mixed models for the quarterly event numbers with the appropriate denominator, and calendar time included as a covariate. PINCER was implemented in 370 (94.1%) of 393 general practices covering a population of almost 3 million patients in the East Midlands region of England; data were successfully extracted from 343 (92.7%) of these practices. For the primary composite outcome, the PINCER intervention was associated with a decrease in the rate of hazardous prescribing of 16.7% (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.86) at 6 months and 15.3% (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.90) at 12 months postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 26.4% (22,503 patients in the numerator/853,631 patients in the denominator) to 20.1% (11,901 patients in the numerator/591,364 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.1% (3,868 patients in the numerator/201,992 patients in the denominator). The greatest reduction in hazardous prescribing associated with the intervention was observed for the indicators associated with GI bleeding; for the GI composite indicator, there was a decrease of 23.9% at both 6 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.80) and 12 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.82) postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 31.4 (16,185 patients in the numerator/515,879 patients in the denominator) to 21.2% (7,607 patients in the numerator/358,349 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.5% (2,369 patients in the numerator/121,534 patients in the denominator). We adjusted for calendar time and practice, but since this was an observational study, the findings may have been influenced by unknown confounding factors or behavioural changes unrelated to the PINCER intervention. Data were also not collected for all practices at 6 months and 12 months postintervention. CONCLUSIONS: The PINCER intervention, when rolled out at scale in routine clinical practice, was associated with a reduction in hazardous prescribing by 17% and 15% at 6 and 12 months postintervention. The greatest reductions in hazardous prescribing were for indicators associated with risk of GI bleeding. These findings support the wider national rollout of PINCER in England.

Astropharmacy: Pushing the boundaries of the pharmacists' role for sustainable space exploration.

BACKGROUND: Human physiology undergoes extensive changes in space potentially leading to alterations in the way a medication functions. Understanding the efficacy behind Pharmacological Countermeasures (PCMs) and deliverable pharmacy services is imperative for the future presence of humans in space. However, while the pharmacist plays an integral role for human health terrestrially, pharmacist input has been minimal for human health in the space sector. Here, we explore the pharmacist's potential role in larger medical teams for future missions. OBJECTIVE: To explore pharmacy and space sector stakeholder perspectives regarding the pharmacist's role in the space sector. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with pharmacy (n = 31) and human health-related space sector stakeholders (n = 26) across the globe from governmental, commercial, industry and academic sectors. Purposive and snowball sampling were used to identify stakeholders. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Three themes - medication management, medication-related research and medication and health information - were generated. The importance of medication optimisation within commercial and federal spaceflight participant medication regimens was cited as necessary for sustainable space exploration. Both groups advocated for pharmacists' involvement with in-situ medication manufacturing and medication-related research, particularly regarding space-based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug profiling. Other essential roles included the pharmacist's role in providing medication information to spaceflight participants and other healthcare professionals on their health status and medication use risk in the context of space. CONCLUSIONS: With the advancement of accessible, commercial space travel and humans becoming an inter-planetary species, the opportunity to tackle PCM needs via a more extensive and comprehensive collaborative effort between the space, medical and pharmacy sectors is essential for sustainable space exploration.

Exploring barriers to the sustainability of an electronic administration system in long-term care facilities: A case study approach.

BACKGROUND: The safe provision of medicines administration is a fundamental challenge faced in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Many residents of LTCFs are frail older persons with multiple morbidities, and in addition to polypharmacy, are particularly at risk of harm due to concomitant disease and disability. One potential method to optimise medication safety and facilitate medicines administration within LTCFs is the introduction of technology. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the barriers to long-term sustainability concerning the use of an electronic administration system (eMAR) in LTCFs. METHODS: Fifteen in depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with LTCF staff (9), eMAR service commissioners (2), members of the implementation team (2) and care home strategy managers (2) across three LTCF sites. The study participants were purposefully sampled and each interview audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Nvivo 11. In addition to interviews, observational notes were taken by the lead researcher from visits to the LCTFs as a form of data collection. The analysis process consisted of a two-stage process of thematic analysis then theoretical mapping. RESULTS: Barriers identified were split into four main overarching areas: structural, implementation team, system user and operational barriers. The adoption of eMAR within this setting was welcomed by top-level stakeholders, however, LTCF staff displayed concerns over its usability. The lack of co-development and on-going training need highlighted barriers to its sustainability, in addition to risks associated with current legislation. The themes identified throughout the framework highlight challenges faced when exploring the sustainability of eMAR in LTCF. CONCLUSIONS: The use of technology in health care is evolving. Awareness of actors relating to its introduction can have significant impact on success and service sustainability.

Incidence, nature and causes of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England: retrospective case note review.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England; describe and classify the associated patient safety incidents and generate suggestions to mitigate risks of ameliorable factors contributing to the incidents. DESIGN: Retrospective case note review. Patients with significant health problems were identified and clinical judgements were made on avoidability and severity of harm. Factors contributing to avoidable harm were identified and recorded. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen general practitioners (GPs) undertook a retrospective case note review of a sample of 14 407 primary care patients registered with 12 randomly selected general practices from three regions in England (total list size: 92 255 patients). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of significant harm considered at least 'probably avoidable' and the nature of the safety incidents. RESULTS: The rate of significant harm considered at least probably avoidable was 35.6 (95% CI 23.3 to 48.0) per 100 000 patient-years (57.9, 95% CI 42.2 to 73.7, per 100 000 based on a sensitivity analysis). Overall, 74 cases of avoidable harm were detected, involving 72 patients. Three types of incident accounted for more than 90% of the problems: problems with diagnosis accounted for 45/74 (60.8%) primary incidents, followed by medication-related problems (n=19, 25.7%) and delayed referrals (n=8, 10.8%). In 59 (79.7%) cases, the significant harm could have been identified sooner (n=48) or prevented (n=11) if the GP had taken actions aligned with evidence-based guidelines. CONCLUSION: There is likely to be a substantial burden of avoidable significant harm attributable to primary care in England with diagnostic error accounting for most harms. Based on the contributory factors we found, improvements could be made through more effective implementation of existing information technology, enhanced team coordination and communication, and greater personal and informational continuity of care.

Validation analysis of Global Health Security Index (GHSI) scores 2019.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic powerfully demonstrates the consequences of biothreats. Countries will want to know how to better prepare for future events. The Global Health Security Index (GHSI) is a broad, independent assessment of 195 countries' preparedness for biothreats that may aid this endeavour. However, to be useful, the GHSI's external validity must be demonstrated. We aimed to validate the GHSI against a range of external metrics to assess how it could be utilised by countries. METHODS: Global aggregate communicable disease outcomes were correlated with GHSI scores and linear regression models were examined to determine associations while controlling for a number of global macroindices. GHSI scores for countries previously exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola and recipients of US Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) investment were compared with matched control countries. Possible content omissions in light of the progressing COVID-19 pandemic were assessed. RESULTS: GHSI scores for countries had strong criterion validity against the Joint External Evaluation ReadyScore (rho=0.82, p<0.0001), and moderate external validity against deaths from communicable diseases (-0.56, p<0.0001). GHSI scores were associated with reduced deaths from communicable diseases (F(3, 172)=22.75, p<0.0001). The proportion of deaths from communicable diseases decreased 4.8% per 10-point rise in GHSI. Recipient countries of the GHSA (n=31) and SARS-affected countries (n=26), had GHSI scores 6.0 (p=0.0011) and 8.2 (p=0.0010) points higher than matched controls, respectively. Biosecurity and biosafety appear weak globally including in high-income countries, and health systems, particularly in Africa, are not prepared. Notably, the GHSI does not account for all factors important for health security. CONCLUSION: The GHSI shows promise as a valid tool to guide action on biosafety, biosecurity and systems preparedness. However, countries need to look beyond existing metrics to other factors moderating the impact of future pandemics and other biothreats. Consideration of anthropogenic and large catastrophic scenarios is also needed.

'New Medicine Service': supporting adherence in people starting a new medication for a long-term condition: 26-week follow-up of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) at 26 weeks. METHODS: Pragmatic patient-level parallel randomised controlled trial in 46 English community pharmacies. 504 participants aged ≥14, identified in the pharmacy when presenting a prescription for a new medicine for predefined long-term conditions, randomised to receive NMS (n=251) or normal practice (n=253) (NMS intervention: 2 consultations 1 and 2 weeks after prescription presentation). Adherence assessed through patient self-report at 26-week follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis employed. National Health Service (NHS) costs calculated. Disease-specific Markov models estimating impact of non-adherence combined with clinical trial data to calculate costs per extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY; NHS England perspective). RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis: of 327 patients still taking the initial medicine, 97/170 (57.1%) and 103/157 (65.6%) (p=0.113) patients were adherent in normal practice and NMS arms, respectively. Adjusted intention-to-treat analysis: adherence OR 1.50 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.44, p=0.095), in favour of NMS. There was a non-significant reduction in 26-week NHS costs for NMS: -£104 (95% CI -£37 to £257, p=0.168) per patient. NMS generated a mean of 0.04 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.13) more QALYs per patient, with mean reduction in lifetime cost of -£113.9 (-1159.4, 683.7). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -£2758/QALY (2.5% and 97.5%: -38 739.5, 34 024.2. NMS has an 89% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At 26-week follow-up, NMS was unable to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in adherence or reduction in NHS costs, which may be attributable to patient attrition from the study. Long-term economic evaluation suggested NMS may deliver better patient outcomes and reduced overall healthcare costs than normal practice, but uncertainty around this finding is high. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01635361, ISRCTN23560818, ISRCTN23560818, UKCRN12494.

'I expected just to walk in, get my tablets and then walk out': on framing new community pharmacy services in the English healthcare system.

Reconfiguration of the healthcare division of labour is becoming increasingly attractive in the context of increased patient demand and resource constraints. One example is the introduction of extended roles for pharmacists to provide patients additional support to manage their medicines, while also reducing work pressures experienced by other health professionals. Understanding how such policies are framed by those delivering and receiving care has been under-theorised. Using Goffman's frame theory, we examine one newly introduced community pharmacy service (New Medicines Service (NMS)) to illustrate how a policy intended to support patient medicine-taking through the extended roles of pharmacists is framed and where this deviates from its proposed aims. Three themes emerged: (i) the spatial-material artefacts; (ii) existing discursive culture and practice around medicine-taking; and (iii) the NMS interactions that shape and govern framing and subsequent interpretation of the NMS. Our study offers an explanatory and dynamic view of the framing process with important lessons for reconfiguring medicine management policy and practice. As well as illustrating framing as being variegated, complementary or conflicting, it also shows how this plurality and fragility had consequences for patient engagement and sense-making. The consequences for engagement and recommendations for implementing future initiatives are discussed.

Cost Effectiveness of Support for People Starting a New Medication for a Long-Term Condition Through Community Pharmacies: An Economic Evaluation of the New Medicine Service (NMS) Compared with Normal Practice.

BACKGROUND: The English community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) significantly increases patient adherence to medicines, compared with normal practice. We examined the cost effectiveness of NMS compared with normal practice by combining adherence improvement and intervention costs with the effect of increased adherence on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. METHODS: We developed Markov models for diseases targeted by the NMS (hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and antiplatelet regimens) to assess the impact of patients' non-adherence. Clinical event probability, treatment pathway, resource use and costs were extracted from literature and costing tariffs. Incremental costs and outcomes associated with each disease were incorporated additively into a composite probabilistic model and combined with adherence rates and intervention costs from the trial. Costs per extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were calculated from the perspective of NHS England, using a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: NMS generated a mean of 0.05 (95% CI 0.00-0.13) more QALYs per patient, at a mean reduced cost of -£144 (95% CI -769 to 73). The NMS dominates normal practice with a probability of 0.78 [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) -£3166 per QALY]. NMS has a 96.7% probability of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that targeting each disease with NMS has a probability over 0.90 of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the NMS increased patient medicine adherence compared with normal practice, which translated into increased health gain at reduced overall cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Trial reference number NCT01635361 ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01635361 ). Current Controlled trials: Trial reference number ISRCTN 23560818 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN23560818/ ; DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN23560818 ). UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) study 12494 ( http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=12494 ). FUNDING: Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

Improved scores for observed teamwork in the clinical environment following a multidisciplinary operating room simulation intervention.

AIMS: We ran a Multidisciplinary Operating Room Simulation (MORSim) course for 20 complete general surgical teams from two large metropolitan hospitals. Our goal was to improve teamwork and communication in the operating room (OR). We hypothesised that scores for teamwork and communication in the OR would improve back in the workplace following MORSim. We used an extended Behavioural Marker Risk Index (BMRI) to measure teamwork and communication, because a relationship has previously been documented between BMRI scores and surgical patient outcomes. METHODS: Trained observers scored general surgical teams in the OR at the two study hospitals before and after MORSim, using the BMRI. RESULTS: Analysis of BMRI scores for the 224 general surgical cases before and 213 cases after MORSim showed BMRI scores improved by more than 20% (0.41 v 0.32, p<0.001). Previous research suggests that this improved teamwork score would translate into a clinically important reduction in complications and mortality in surgical patients. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated an improvement in scores for teamwork and communication in general surgical ORs following our intervention. These results support the use of simulation-based multidisciplinary team training for OR staff to promote better teamwork and communication, and potentially improve outcomes for general surgical patients.

Examination of England's New Medicine Service (NMS) of complex health care interventions in community pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacies are increasingly commissioned to deliver new, complex health interventions in response to the growing demands on family doctors and secondary health care services. Little is known about how these complex interventions are being accommodated and translated into the community pharmacy setting and whether their aims and objectives are realized in practice. The New Medicine Service (NMS) is a complex medicine management intervention that aims to support patients' adherence to newly prescribed medicines for a long-term condition. OBJECTIVE: This study explores the recent implementation of the NMS in community pharmacies across England. It also seeks to understand how the service is becoming manifest in practice and what lessons can be learned for future service implementation. METHODS: Structured, organizational ethnographic observations and in situ workplace interviews with pharmacists and support staff were undertaken within 23 English community pharmacies. Additionally, one-to-one, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 47 community pharmacists and 11 general practitioners (GPs). Observational and interview data were transcribed and analyzed thematically and guided by Damschroder's consolidated framework for implementation research. RESULTS: The NMS workload had been implemented and absorbed into pharmacists' daily routines alongside existing responsibilities with no extra resources and little evidence of reduction in other responsibilities. Pharmacists were pragmatic, simplifying, and adapting the NMS to facilitate its delivery and using discretion to circumvent perceived non-essential paperwork. Pharmacist understanding of the NMS was found to impact on what they believed should be achieved from the service. Despite pharmacists holding positive views about the value of the NMS, not all were convinced of its perceived benefits and necessity, with reports that many consultations did not identify any problems with the patients' medicines. GPs were generally supportive of the initiative but were unaware of the service or potential benefits. Poorly developed existing pharmacist-GP relationships impeded implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies the multifaceted and complex processes involved in implementing a new community pharmacy service in England. Community pharmacy workflow, infrastructure, and public and professional relationships all affect NMS implementation. Greater prior engagement with the pharmacy workforce and GPs, robust piloting and a phased rollout together with ongoing support and updates, are potentials strategies to ensure future implementation of pharmacy services meet their intended aims in practice.

Supporting adherence for people starting a new medication for a long-term condition through community pharmacies: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the New Medicine Service.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of the New Medicine Service (NMS), a national community pharmacy service to support medicines-taking in people starting a new medicine for a long-term condition, compared with normal practice. METHODS: Pragmatic patient-level parallel randomised controlled trial, in 46 community pharmacies in England. Patients 1:1 block randomisation stratified by drug/disease group within each pharmacy. 504 participants (NMS: 251) aged 14 years and over, identified in the pharmacy on presentation of a prescription for asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes or an anticoagulant/antiplatelet agent. NMS intervention: One consultation 7-14 days after presentation of prescription followed by another 14-21 days thereafter to identify problems with treatment and provide support if needed. Controls received normal practice. Adherence, defined as missing no doses without the advice of a medical professional in the previous 7 days, was assessed through patient self-report at 10 weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis was employed, with outcome adjusted for recruiting pharmacy, NMS disease category, age, sex and medication count. Cost to the National Health Service (NHS) was collected. RESULTS: At 10 weeks, 53 patients had withdrawn and 443 (85%) patients were contacted successfully by telephone. In the unadjusted analysis of 378 patients still taking the initial medicine, 61% (95% CI 54% to 67%) and 71% (95% CI 64% to 77%) patients were adherent in the normal practice and NMS arms, respectively (p=0.04 for difference). In the adjusted intention-to-treat analysis, the OR for increased adherence was 1.67 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.62; p=0.027) in favour of the NMS arm. There was a general trend to reduced NHS costs, albeit, statistically non-significant, for the NMS intervention: saving £21 (95% CI -£59 to £100, p=0.128) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The NMS significantly increased the proportion of patients adhering to their new medicine by about 10%, compared with normal practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov trial reference number NCT01635361 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01635361). Current Controlled trials: trial reference number ISRCTN 23560818 (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN23560818/; DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN23560818). UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) study 12494 (http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=12494).

Revision workshops in elementary mathematics enhance student performance in routine laboratory calculations.

The ability to understand and implement calculations required for molarity and dilution computations that are routinely undertaken in the laboratory are essential skills that should be possessed by all students entering an undergraduate Life Sciences degree. However, it is increasingly recognized that the majority of these students are ill equipped to reliably carry out such calculations. There are several factors that conspire against students' understanding of this topic, with the alien concept of the mole in relation to the mass of compounds and the engineering notation required when expressing the relatively small quantities typically involved being two key examples. In this report, we highlight teaching methods delivered via revision workshops to undergraduate Life Sciences students at the University of Nottingham. Workshops were designed to 1) expose student deficiencies in basic numeracy skills and remedy these deficiencies, 2) introduce molarity and dilution calculations and illustrate their workings in a step-by-step manner, and 3) allow students to appreciate the magnitude of numbers. Preworkshop to postworkshop comparisons demonstrated a considerable improvement in students' performance, which attenuated with time. The findings of our study suggest that an ability to carry out laboratory calculations cannot be assumed in students entering Life Sciences degrees in the United Kingdom but that explicit instruction in the form of workshops improves proficiency to a level of competence that allows students to prosper in the laboratory environment.

The effect of the electronic transmission of prescriptions on dispensing errors and prescription enhancements made in English community pharmacies: a naturalistic stepped wedge study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare prevalence and types of dispensing errors and pharmacists' labelling enhancements, for prescriptions transmitted electronically versus paper prescriptions. DESIGN: Naturalistic stepped wedge study. SETTING: 15 English community pharmacies. INTERVENTION: Electronic transmission of prescriptions between prescriber and pharmacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of labelling errors, content errors and labelling enhancements (beneficial additions to the instructions), as identified by researchers visiting each pharmacy. RESULTS: Overall, we identified labelling errors in 5.4% of 16,357 dispensed items, and content errors in 1.4%; enhancements were made for 13.6%. Pharmacists also edited the label for a further 21.9% of electronically transmitted items. Electronically transmitted prescriptions had a higher prevalence of labelling errors (7.4% of 3733 items) than other prescriptions (4.8% of 12,624); OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.76). There was no difference for content errors or enhancements. The increase in labelling errors was mainly accounted for by errors (mainly at one pharmacy) involving omission of the indication, where specified by the prescriber, from the label. A sensitivity analysis in which these cases (n=158) were not considered errors revealed no remaining difference between prescription types. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a higher prevalence of labelling errors for items transmitted electronically, but this was predominantly accounted for by local practice in a single pharmacy, independent of prescription type. Community pharmacists made labelling enhancements to about one in seven dispensed items, whether electronically transmitted or not. Community pharmacists, prescribers, professional bodies and software providers should work together to agree how items should be dispensed and labelled to best reap the benefits of electronically transmitted prescriptions. Community pharmacists need to ensure their computer systems are promptly updated to help reduce errors.

What proportion of prescription items dispensed in community pharmacies are eligible for the New Medicine Service?

BACKGROUND: The payment structure for the New Medicine Service (NMS) in England is based on the assumption that 0.5% of prescription items dispensed in community pharmacies are eligible for the service. This assumption is based on a theoretical calculation. This study aimed to find out the actual proportion of prescription items eligible for the NMS dispensed in community pharmacies in order to compare this with the theoretical assumption. The study also aimed to investigate whether the proportion of prescription items eligible for the NMS is affected by pharmacies' proximity to GP practices. METHODS: The study collected data from eight pharmacies in Nottingham belonging to the same large chain of pharmacies. Pharmacies were grouped by distance from the nearest GP practice and sampled to reflect the distribution by distance of all pharmacies in Nottingham. Data on one thousand consecutive prescription items were collected from each pharmacy and the number of NMS eligible items recorded. All NHS prescriptions were included in the sample. Data were analysed and proportions calculated with 95% confidence intervals used to compare the study results against the theoretical figure of 0.5% of prescription items being eligible for the NMS. RESULTS: A total of 8005 prescription items were collected (a minimum of 1000 items per pharmacy) of which 17 items were eligible to receive the service. The study found that 0.25% (95% confidence intervals: 0.14% to 0.36%) of prescription items were eligible for the NMS which differs significantly from the theoretical assumption of 0.5%. The opportunity rate for the service was lower, 0.21% (95% confidence intervals: 0.10% to 0.32%) of items, as some items eligible for the NMS did not translate into opportunities to offer the service. Of all the prescription items collected in the pharmacies, 28% were collected by patient representatives. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that the proportion of items eligible for the NMS dispensed in community pharmacies is lower than the Department of Health assumption of 0.5%. This study did not find a significant difference in the rate of NMS opportunities between pharmacies located close to GP practices compared to those further away.

Assessing the safety features of electronic patient medication record systems used in community pharmacies in England.

AIMS: To evaluate the ability of electronic patient medication record (ePMR) systems used in community pharmacies in England to detect and alert users about clinical hazards, errors and other safety problems. METHODS: Between September 2012 and November 2012, direct on-site observational data about the performance of ePMR systems were collected from nine sites. Twenty-eight scenarios were developed by consensus agreement between a general practitioner and two community pharmacists. Each scenario was entered into the ePMR system, and the results obtained from the assessment of six unique systems in nine sites, in terms of the presence or absence of an alert, were recorded onto a prespecified form. RESULTS: None of the systems produced the correct responses for all of the 28 scenarios tested. Only two systems provided an alert to penicillin sensitivity. No dose or frequency check was observed when processing a prescription for methotrexate. One system did not warn about nonsuitability of aspirin prescribed to a child of 14 years of age. In another system, it was not possible to record a patient's pregnancy status. None of the six systems provided any warning for diclofenac overdose, high initiation dose of morphine sulfate or significant dose increase. Only one of the systems did not produce any spurious alerts. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the ePMR systems tested was variable and suboptimal. The findings suggest the need for minimum specifications and standards for ePMR systems to ensure consistency of performance.

Views and experiences of community pharmacists and superintendent pharmacists regarding the New Medicine Service in England prior to implementation.

BACKGROUND: The New Medicine Service (NMS) was introduced to community pharmacies in England in October 2011. The NMS aims to improve adherence to new medicines in patients with selected long term conditions. The service consists of two follow-up consultations within 1 month in addition to usual care. OBJECTIVES: This study explored community pharmacist and superintendent pharmacist views and experiences of the NMS in the 5 weeks prior to its implementation to identify potential facilitators and barriers to its success. The study also investigated participant experiences of the introduction and provision of existing pharmacy services in order to contrast with the implementation of the NMS. METHODS: This study consisted of four focus groups with a total of 15 community pharmacists representing locums and employees of small, medium and large chain pharmacies. In addition, 5 semi-structured interviews were conducted with superintendent pharmacists representing independent, small chain, supermarket and large multiple pharmacies. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Both pharmacists and superintendent pharmacists were positive about the NMS and identified potential benefits for patients and the pharmacy profession. Awareness of the service was high, however, some confusion between the NMS and changes to Medicine Use Reviews was evident in all focus groups due to their similarity and coincidental implementation. This confusion was not observed in the interviews with superintendent pharmacists. Participants identified pharmacists' positive attitude, the similarity to current practice and the self-accreditation procedure as potential facilitators to service implementation. Potential barriers identified included a perceived lack of interest and awareness by GPs of the service, and the payment structure. Participants were concerned about the speed of implementation, and the absence of some materials needed prior to the start of the service. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were enthusiastic about the potential of the NMS to benefit patients and the pharmacy profession. Participants were able to identify several potential barriers and facilitators to the provision of the service. It remains to be seen whether the factors identified affected the early implementation of the service.

Unusually difficult ring removal from a finger solved using a dental instrument.

Ring removal is indicated in a number of clinical circumstances to manage or prevent tourniquet effect of the digit, or allow access to underlying conditions or injuries. A ring made from hardened metal may defy many or all commonly known methods of removal. We report a case of unusually difficult removal of a ring of hardened metal composition using a dental volvere. We believe the unusual circumstances of this case are likely to be repeated on some readers' clinical practice, and that this instrument is an appropriate option to consider in such cases.