An extended information service on prescription medicines was evaluated in four community pharmacies over a period of 11 months, including a three-month pilot phase. Written patient information leaflets (PILs) and structured verbal advice designed according to the preferences of local people were provided by the pharmacist to patients prescribed any of three study drugs -amoxycillin, atenolol or ibuprofen. A total of 1,614 PILs were issued. Data were collected from a sample of 3 11 recipients about their perception and recall of the information service. Altogether, 64 per cent remembered receiving the study leaflet and 56 per cent remembered receiving some verbal information from the pharmacist. More than 80 per cent of service recipients supported the provision of both verbal and written information by the pharmacist. In the main study period (n=203), the types of information respondents could recall receiving most frequently were when to take the medicine (67 per cent), the name of the medicine (53 per cent) and side effects (41 per cent). Sixty seven per cent (40) of those receiving amoxycillin, 61 per cent (43) taking atenolol and 38 per cent (28) taking ibuprofen recognised a side effect of their medicine given in both the leaflet and verbal advice. For all three drugs, side effects were recognised most frequently when included in both the written and verbal information. Support for this aspect of the pharmacist's extended role has been demonstrated in practice and the feasibility of service implementation is discussed.

The acceptability to the general public of an extended role for community pharmacy was investigated using a social survey methodology. Within one locality, a sample of 133 respondents was drawn from four population groups who were likely to be extensive users of community pharmacy services: active elderly people, mothers of young children, carers of people with disabilities and people in full‐time employment. The evidence from the interview survey was supplemented by discussions with community groups representative of the same sections of the population. The results indicate that there is considerable public support for the development of a range of new services in community pharmacies, with a majority of respondents supporting the provision of more information on prescribed medicines, opportunity to discuss minor symptoms with the pharmacist, medicine delivery services, and the holding of patient medication records. There is less support for discussing health promotion with the pharmacist, while cost was found to be a major obstacle to the acceptability of diagnostic testing. Elderly people found all aspects of the extended role less acceptable than did other respondent groups. It is concluded that there is a need to market unfamiliar services, and, if an extended role is to be developed effectively, the nature of the relationship between the roles of the community pharmacist and the GP needs to be demonstrated more clearly to service users.