Clinical medication reviews in collaboration with general practitioners can have a positive effect on the Medication Appropriateness Index. However, pharmacist withdrawal from the study suggests that community pharmacy may not be an appropriate environment from which to expand clinical medication reviews in primary care.

No abstract

No abstract

INTRODUCTION: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are ongoing concerns to the health system. Poor inhaler technique results in less than optimal delivery of medicine to the lungs and consequent inadequate symptom control. AIM: This study aimed to assess inhaler technique amongst people with asthma and/or COPD. The secondary aims were to investigate who provided education on inhaler technique and whether age, gender or ethnicity was associated with poor inhaler technique. METHODS: People with asthma or COPD who presented to a community pharmacy with a prescription for a respiratory inhaler were invited to participate in the study. Participants completed a brief questionnaire and had their inhaler technique assessed against a standard checklist. RESULTS: There were 103 participants from 26 pharmacies, 86 with asthma and 17 with COPD. Just over half (52.5%) of the assessments indicated good inhaler technique, with 68% of people using the Turbuhaler having good technique compared to 53% for the pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI) with spacer and 47% for the pMDI alone. The majority of people (76%) received their initial inhaler technique instruction from their doctor. Over half of participants did not recall having their inhaler technique rechecked. DISCUSSION: After prescribing appropriate therapy, correct inhaler technique is a cornerstone of achieving adequate therapy. Rechecking inhaler technique is a gap in care that needs to be addressed from an interdisciplinary perspective. KEYWORDS: Asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; dry powder inhalers; metered dose inhalers; spacer inhalers

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of gout among Maori is one of the highest in the world. This study explores the perceptions, understanding and treatment of gout among Maori. METHODS: A qualitative general inductive approach was used, guided by kaupapa Maori principles. Participants included 12 Maori aged 48–79 years with gout. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken, taped and transcribed. Themes were identified from transcripts. FINDINGS: Participants described overwhelming sufferance due to gout, which was sometimes considered inevitable. All participants believed or had been informed that gout is caused by food and/or drink. This led to feelings of self-blame and blame from partners and employers. Whanau (family) were a resource for information and a support when independence was limited. Rongoa (traditional medicine) played a role in the lives of rural but not urban participants. Many reported stoicism, putting up with pain and putting others before themselves, as the ‘Maori way’. Medicines used for gout management were predominantly non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, colchicine and prednisone, with allopurinol only playing a role late in the disease. Medications were often poorly understood and consequently improperly used. Relationships with health professionals were important, but cultural, financial and time barriers impaired access and understanding. Gout had a huge, negative impact on the lives of participants. CONCLUSION: The quality of lives of many people with gout could be improved by better understanding through educational campaigns for health professionals and the community. Culturally sensitive health care systems and a paradigm shift in gout management and early preventive treatment are needed. KEYWORDS: Drug therapy; ethnic groups; gout; health status disparities; primary health care; qualitative research

Different factors limit or enable reclassification, affecting consumer access to medicines in different countries. For countries attempting to reduce barriers to reclassification, solutions may include garnering government support for reclassification, support and flexibility from the medicines regulator, having a pharmacy-only and/or pharmacist-only category, providing market exclusivity, ensuring best practice in pharmacy, and minimizing the cost and delays of reclassification.

INTRODUCTION: Delivery of current health care services focuses on interdisciplinary teams and greater involvement of health care providers such as nurses and pharmacists. This requires a change in role perception and acceptance, usually with some resistance to changes. There are few studies investigating the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) towards community pharmacists increasing their participation in roles such as clinical medication reviews. There is an expectation that these roles may be perceived as crossing a clinical boundary between the work of the GP and that of a pharmacist. METHODS: Thirty-eight GPs who participated in the General Practitioner–Pharmacists Collaboration (GPPC) study in New Zealand were interviewed at the study conclusion. The GPPC study investigated outcomes of a community pharmacist undertaking a clinical medication review in collaboration with a GP, and potential barriers. The GPs were exposed to one of 20 study pharmacists. The semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim then analysed using a general inductive thematic approach. FINDINGS: The GP balanced two themes, patient outcomes and resource utilisation, which determined the over-arching theme, value. This concept was a continuum, depending on the balance. Factors influencing the theme of patient outcomes included the clinical versus theoretical nature of the pharmacist recommendations. Factors influencing resource utilisation for general practice were primarily time and funding. CONCLUSION: GPs attributed different values to community pharmacists undertaking clinical medication reviews, but this value usually balanced the quality and usefulness of the pharmacist’s recommendations with the efficiency of the system in terms of workload and funding. KEYWORDS: Family physicians; community pharmacy services; drug utilization review; primary healthcare; health plan implementation; qualitative research; interprofessional relations

BackgroundSwitching or reclassifying medicines with established safety profiles from prescription to non-prescription aims to increase timely consumer access to medicines, reduce under-treatment and enhance self-management. However, risks include suboptimal therapy and adverse effects. With a long-standing government policy supporting switching or reclassifying medicines from prescription to non-prescription, the United Kingdom is believed to lead the world in switch, but evidence for this is inconclusive. Interest in switching medicines for certain long-term conditions has arisen in the United Kingdom, United States, and Europe, but such switches have been contentious. The objective of this study was then to provide a comprehensive comparison of progress in switch for medicines across six developed countries: the United States; the United Kingdom; Australia; Japan; the Netherlands; and New Zealand.MethodsA list of prescription-to-non-prescription medicine switches was systematically compiled. Three measures were used to compare switch activity across the countries: “progressive” switches from 2003 to 2013 (indicating incremental consumer benefit over current non-prescription medicines); “first-in-world” switches from 2003 to 2013; and switch date comparisons for selected medicines.ResultsNew Zealand was the most active in progressive switches from 2003 to 2013, with the United Kingdom and Japan not far behind. The United States, Australia and the Netherlands showed the least activity in this period. Few medicines for long-term conditions were switched, even in the United Kingdom and New Zealand where first-in-world switches were most likely. Switch of certain medicines took considerably longer in some countries than others. For example, a consumer in the United Kingdom could self-medicate with a non-sedating antihistamine 19 years earlier than a consumer in the United States.ConclusionProactivity in medicines switching, most notably in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, questions missed opportunities to enhance consumers' self-management in countries such as the United States.