Recreational physical activity in natural environments and implications for health: A population based cross-sectional study in England.

BACKGROUND: Building on evidence that natural environments (e.g. parks, woodlands, beaches) are key locations for physical activity, we estimated the total annual amount of adult recreational physical activity in England's natural environments, and assessed implications for population health. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of six waves (2009/10-2014/5) of the nationally representative, Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey (n=280,790). The survey uses a weekly quota sample, and population weights, to estimate nature visit frequency across England, and provides details on a single, randomly selected visit (n=112,422), including: a) duration; b) activity; and c) environment type. RESULTS: Approximately 8.23 million (95% CIs: 7.93, 8.54) adults (19.5% of the population) made at least one 'active visit' (i.e. ≥30min, ≥3 METs) to natural environments in the previous week, resulting in 1.23 billion (1.14, 1.32) 'active visits' annually. An estimated 3.20 million (3.05, 3.35) of these also reported meeting recommended physical activity guidelines (i.e. ≥5×30min a week) fully, or in part, through such visits. Active visits by this group were associated with an estimated 109,164 (101,736, 116,592) Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) annually. Assuming the social value of a QALY to be £20,000, the annual value of these visits was approximately £2.18 billion (£2.03, £2.33). Results for walking were replicated using WHO's Health Economic Assessment Tool. CONCLUSIONS: Natural environments provide the context for a large proportion of England's recreational physical activity and highlight the need to protect and manage such environments for health purposes.

Microcost analysis of the prescription dispensing process in an outpatient hospital pharmacy.

The costs involved in dispensing a prescription in an outpatient pharmacy at a 450-bed teaching hospital were studied. Work sampling was used to determine pharmacist and technician time involved in dispensing a prescription, and other direct and indirect costs involved in dispensing a prescription were isolated. The cost per prescription was calculated as the total of personnel costs for dispensing plus other costs, excluding the cost of the drug. Average of 2.68 and 3.37 minutes of pharmacist and technician time, respectively, were directly involved in dispensing each prescription. The standard auxiliary times per prescription were calculated to be 1.17 minutes and 4.66 minutes for the two groups, respectively. Total pharmacy personnel time consumed in dispensing a prescription was 13.33 minutes. Total calculated personnel cost included in dispensing a prescription was +3.14. Adding to this figure other direct and indirect costs resulted in a total cost of +5.42 for dispensing a prescription. Although the time and cost figures identified are unique to this outpatient pharmacy, other institutions can use these microcosting techniques to provide data that can be useful in the negotiation of contracts for the provision of pharmaceutical services to ambulatory patients.

Physicians' review of significant interventions by clinical pharmacists in inpatient care.

Clinical pharmacists in this study hospital reported 1027 interventions in patient drug therapy over two time periods of three and two weeks each. When peer-reviewed for clinical significance, 36 of these interventions were deemed significant in terms of saving patients' lives or preserving major organ functions; 983 were judged to improve drug therapy to an acceptable level based on standards of the professional literature (8 recommendations were informational i.e., not clinically significant). These 36 interventions were subjected to an independent, blind review by three practicing physicians who were given the same ranking system for clinical relevance as the one used by the peer reviewers. The physicians independently concurred with the peer reviewers on the two interventions initially ranked as 6 (lifesaving in nature). Of the interventions ranked 5 (preserving major organ functions) by the peer-review group, 53 percent were given a rank of 5 by the physicians. However, the remaining 47 percent were given a rank of 4 (upgrading patient drug therapy to the most appropriate level based on professionally accepted standards). In this era of program evaluation and justification, the process of encouraging other health professionals to review pharmacists' contribution to patient care should not be overlooked.