Patient Feedback on Pharmacist Prescribing for Minor Ailments in a Canadian
            Province

Taylor, Jeff; Mansell, Kerry

doi:10.24926/21550417.1331

Cited by 5 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 4798 unique titles were screened, of which 19 [ 1 , 17 – 34 ] fulfilled eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review ( Fig 1 ). All eligible papers were published in English language.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study utilised an RCT design [ 18 ] and the remainder (n = 18) used observational designs ( Table 3 ). All included studies involved community pharmacy setting for which the clinical outcomes were measured [ 1 , 17 – 34 ]. Other settings, such as general practice [ 1 , 18 , 32 ] and EDs [ 1 ], were also included as comparators in measuring effectiveness against pharmacy-based management of minor ailments ( Table 3 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies either focused on one therapeutic area such as cough [ 18 , 30 ], cold [ 23 ], skin conditions [ 29 ], gastrointestinal problems [ 22 , 24 , 27 , 32 ] or multiple minor ailment areas [ 1 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 26 , 28 , 33 , 34 ] ( Table 4 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of studies stated that pharmacists or members of pharmacy staff delivered the intervention [ 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 26 , 29 , 32 – 34 ]; although there was no clear distinction of their remit. One study used NHS Direct telephone staff to refer potential participants to out-of-hours pharmacy settings including referral to other settings such as the general practice [ 25 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine studies reported that specific training had been provided to staff as either a component of the intervention or the research [ 19 , 20 , 24 , 26 – 29 , 31 , 32 ]. For the majority of studies (n = 13), it was not specified who paid for the service at the point of care [ 1 , 17 – 21 , 24 – 28 , 32 , 34 ]. The remaining studies reported that minor ailment treatment was either paid for by patients [ 22 , 23 , 29 – 31 , 33 ] or free at the point of care [ 33 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Methodological considerations in clinical outcomes assessment of pharmacy-based minor ailments management: A systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe accessibility of services within community pharmacies provides an ideal opportunity to manage minor ailments, yet over £1.1 billion is spent by the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) in managing minor ailments in high cost settings. There is a need to review the evidence base around clinical effectiveness of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments since the absence of such may lead to under-utilisation of pharmacy services and non-implementation of available pharmacy service models. This study aimed to systematically review the methodological approaches used to assess clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments in the research literature.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify relevant literature using the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, IPA, CRD, CDSR, and Google Scholar from publication year 2000 onwards. Studies were included if they evaluated clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of any minor ailments, with or without a comparator setting such as Emergency Departments (EDs) or general practices. Screening and selection of titles, abstracts and full texts followed by data extraction and quality assessment (QA) was conducted. Paired researchers, from the team, reviewed papers using a protocol based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). QA was undertaken using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Reporting was conducted in accordance with PRISMA checklist and statements.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included. The majority of studies were observational, conducted in community pharmacies, and did not use a comparator participant group nor a comparator setting. Interventions included counselling, medicines supply and provision of advice on the management of minor ailments. One study used the randomised controlled trial (RCT) design with majority of the study utilising observational design. A range of clinical outcomes including symptom severity, pattern, resolution, and quality of life were reported. Methods used for the assessment of clinical outcomes were, overall, poorly reported. This included a lack of information on the development and validation of the data collection tools and the timing of baseline and follow-up data collection. Adverse clinical outcomes data were collected by only seven studies.ConclusionsCurrently, there are methodological limitations in the studies that have sought to assess clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments. Such lack of high quality evidence may contribute to failings to shift care from high cost settings, such as EDs and general practices. Generation of high quality evidence is likely to influence public choices when seeking care for minor ailments. There is scope for development of a core outcomes set specific to minor ailments management and development of a validated methodology for measuring such outcomes in a research study.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Methodological considerations in clinical outcomes assessment of pharmacy-based minor ailments management: A systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Community pharmacist prescribing of antimicrobials: A systematic review from an antimicrobial stewardship perspective

Khalid

Langford

et al. 2021

Can Pharm J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Pharmacist prescribing authority is expanding, while antimicrobial resistance is an increasing global concern. We sought to synthesize the evidence for antimicrobial prescribing by community pharmacists to identify opportunities to advance antimicrobial stewardship in this setting. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to characterize the existing literature on community pharmacist prescribing of systemic antimicrobials. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for English-language articles published between 1999 and June 20, 2019, as well as hand-searched reference lists of included articles and incorporated expert suggestions. Results: Of 3793 articles identified, 14 met inclusion criteria. Pharmacists are most often prescribing for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI), acute pharyngitis and cold sores using independent and supplementary prescribing models. This was associated with high rates of clinical improvement (4 studies), low rates of retreatment and adverse effects (3 studies) and decreased health care utilization (7 studies). Patients were highly satisfied (8 studies) and accessed care sooner or more easily (7 studies). Seven studies incorporated antimicrobial stewardship into study design, and there was overlap between study outcomes and those relevant to outpatient antimicrobial stewardship. Pharmacist intervention reduced unnecessary prescribing for acute pharyngitis (2 studies) and increased the appropriateness of prescribing for UTI (3 studies). Conclusion: There is growing evidence to support the role of community pharmacists in antimicrobial prescribing. Future research should explore additional opportunities for pharmacist antimicrobial prescribing and ways to further integrate advanced antimicrobial stewardship strategies in the community setting. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2021;154:xx-xx.

show abstract

Pharmacy-Based Assessment and Management of Herpes Labialis (Cold Sores) with Antiviral Therapy

Adams

Klepser

2020

Innov Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herpes labialis, commonly known as cold sores, is an infection of the mouth and surrounding area. Antiviral therapy can be used to block viral replication, which shortens the duration of symptoms, facilitates resolution of lesions, and lessens the risk of spreading the virus. Increasing access to antivirals targeted against herpes labialis by allowing assessment and prescribing by a pharmacist may decrease time to treatment for HSV-1, and improve patient satisfaction. Experience from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States demonstrate that pharmacist management of cold sores has a safe track record and may be considered by other jurisdictions. Commentary

show abstract

Patient Feedback on Pharmacist Prescribing for Minor Ailments in a Canadian Province

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Methodological considerations in clinical outcomes assessment of pharmacy-based minor ailments management: A systematic review

Methodological considerations in clinical outcomes assessment of pharmacy-based minor ailments management: A systematic review

Community pharmacist prescribing of antimicrobials: A systematic review from an antimicrobial stewardship perspective

Pharmacy-Based Assessment and Management of Herpes Labialis (Cold Sores) with Antiviral Therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About