Are pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes a substitute for other service providers?

Vibhu Paudyal, Margaret C Watson, Tracey Sach, Terry Porteous, Christine M Bond, David J Wright, Jennifer Cleland, Garry Barton, Richard Holland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes (PMASs) have been introduced throughout the UK to reduce the burden of minor ailments on high-cost settings, including general practice and emergency departments.

Aim: This study aimed to explore the effect of PMASs on patient health- and cost-related outcomes; and their impact on general practices.

Design and setting: Community pharmacy-based systematic review.

Method: Standard systematic review methods were used, including searches of electronic databases, and grey literature from 2001 to 2011, imposing no restrictions on language or study design. Reporting was conducted in the form recommended in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and checklist.

Results: Thirty-one evaluations were included from 3308 titles identified. Reconsultation rates in general practice, following an index consultation with a PMAS, ranged from 2.4% to 23.4%. The proportion of patients reporting complete resolution of symptoms after an index PMAS consultation ranged from 68% to 94%. No study included a full economic evaluation. The mean cost per PMAS consultation ranged from £1.44 to £15.90. The total number of consultations and prescribing for minor ailments at general practices often declined following the introduction of PMAS.

Conclusion: Low reconsultation and high symptom-resolution rates suggest that minor ailments are being dealt with appropriately by PMASs. PMAS consultations are less expensive than consultations with GPs. The extent to which these schemes shift demand for management of minor ailments away from high-cost settings has not been fully determined. This evidence suggests that PMASs provide a suitable alternative to general practice consultations. Evidence from economic evaluations is needed to inform the future delivery of PMASs.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e472-e481
Number of pages10
JournalThe British Journal of General Practice
Volume63
Issue number612
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2013

Fingerprint

Referral and Consultation
General Practice
Costs and Cost Analysis
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Literature
Pharmacies
Checklist
Health Care Costs
Meta-Analysis
Hospital Emergency Service
Language
Databases

Keywords

  • community pharmacy services
  • general practice
  • pharmacy
  • self care
  • primary health care

Cite this

Are pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes a substitute for other service providers? / Paudyal, Vibhu; Watson, Margaret C; Sach, Tracey; Porteous, Terry ; Bond, Christine M; Wright, David J; Cleland, Jennifer; Barton, Garry; Holland, Richard.

In: The British Journal of General Practice, Vol. 63, No. 612, 01.07.2013, p. e472-e481.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Paudyal, Vibhu ; Watson, Margaret C ; Sach, Tracey ; Porteous, Terry ; Bond, Christine M ; Wright, David J ; Cleland, Jennifer ; Barton, Garry ; Holland, Richard. / Are pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes a substitute for other service providers?. In: The British Journal of General Practice. 2013 ; Vol. 63, No. 612. pp. e472-e481.
@article{2f6ae8ef754c4e7d9465260ec9aa30a1,
title = "Are pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes a substitute for other service providers?",
abstract = "Background: Pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes (PMASs) have been introduced throughout the UK to reduce the burden of minor ailments on high-cost settings, including general practice and emergency departments.Aim: This study aimed to explore the effect of PMASs on patient health- and cost-related outcomes; and their impact on general practices.Design and setting: Community pharmacy-based systematic review.Method: Standard systematic review methods were used, including searches of electronic databases, and grey literature from 2001 to 2011, imposing no restrictions on language or study design. Reporting was conducted in the form recommended in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and checklist.Results: Thirty-one evaluations were included from 3308 titles identified. Reconsultation rates in general practice, following an index consultation with a PMAS, ranged from 2.4{\%} to 23.4{\%}. The proportion of patients reporting complete resolution of symptoms after an index PMAS consultation ranged from 68{\%} to 94{\%}. No study included a full economic evaluation. The mean cost per PMAS consultation ranged from £1.44 to £15.90. The total number of consultations and prescribing for minor ailments at general practices often declined following the introduction of PMAS.Conclusion: Low reconsultation and high symptom-resolution rates suggest that minor ailments are being dealt with appropriately by PMASs. PMAS consultations are less expensive than consultations with GPs. The extent to which these schemes shift demand for management of minor ailments away from high-cost settings has not been fully determined. This evidence suggests that PMASs provide a suitable alternative to general practice consultations. Evidence from economic evaluations is needed to inform the future delivery of PMASs.",
keywords = "community pharmacy services, general practice, pharmacy, self care , primary health care",
author = "Vibhu Paudyal and Watson, {Margaret C} and Tracey Sach and Terry Porteous and Bond, {Christine M} and Wright, {David J} and Jennifer Cleland and Garry Barton and Richard Holland",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3399/bjgp13X669194",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "e472--e481",
journal = "The British Journal of General Practice",
issn = "0960-1643",
publisher = "Royal College of General Practitioners",
number = "612",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes a substitute for other service providers?

AU - Paudyal, Vibhu

AU - Watson, Margaret C

AU - Sach, Tracey

AU - Porteous, Terry

AU - Bond, Christine M

AU - Wright, David J

AU - Cleland, Jennifer

AU - Barton, Garry

AU - Holland, Richard

PY - 2013/7/1

Y1 - 2013/7/1

N2 - Background: Pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes (PMASs) have been introduced throughout the UK to reduce the burden of minor ailments on high-cost settings, including general practice and emergency departments.Aim: This study aimed to explore the effect of PMASs on patient health- and cost-related outcomes; and their impact on general practices.Design and setting: Community pharmacy-based systematic review.Method: Standard systematic review methods were used, including searches of electronic databases, and grey literature from 2001 to 2011, imposing no restrictions on language or study design. Reporting was conducted in the form recommended in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and checklist.Results: Thirty-one evaluations were included from 3308 titles identified. Reconsultation rates in general practice, following an index consultation with a PMAS, ranged from 2.4% to 23.4%. The proportion of patients reporting complete resolution of symptoms after an index PMAS consultation ranged from 68% to 94%. No study included a full economic evaluation. The mean cost per PMAS consultation ranged from £1.44 to £15.90. The total number of consultations and prescribing for minor ailments at general practices often declined following the introduction of PMAS.Conclusion: Low reconsultation and high symptom-resolution rates suggest that minor ailments are being dealt with appropriately by PMASs. PMAS consultations are less expensive than consultations with GPs. The extent to which these schemes shift demand for management of minor ailments away from high-cost settings has not been fully determined. This evidence suggests that PMASs provide a suitable alternative to general practice consultations. Evidence from economic evaluations is needed to inform the future delivery of PMASs.

AB - Background: Pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes (PMASs) have been introduced throughout the UK to reduce the burden of minor ailments on high-cost settings, including general practice and emergency departments.Aim: This study aimed to explore the effect of PMASs on patient health- and cost-related outcomes; and their impact on general practices.Design and setting: Community pharmacy-based systematic review.Method: Standard systematic review methods were used, including searches of electronic databases, and grey literature from 2001 to 2011, imposing no restrictions on language or study design. Reporting was conducted in the form recommended in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and checklist.Results: Thirty-one evaluations were included from 3308 titles identified. Reconsultation rates in general practice, following an index consultation with a PMAS, ranged from 2.4% to 23.4%. The proportion of patients reporting complete resolution of symptoms after an index PMAS consultation ranged from 68% to 94%. No study included a full economic evaluation. The mean cost per PMAS consultation ranged from £1.44 to £15.90. The total number of consultations and prescribing for minor ailments at general practices often declined following the introduction of PMAS.Conclusion: Low reconsultation and high symptom-resolution rates suggest that minor ailments are being dealt with appropriately by PMASs. PMAS consultations are less expensive than consultations with GPs. The extent to which these schemes shift demand for management of minor ailments away from high-cost settings has not been fully determined. This evidence suggests that PMASs provide a suitable alternative to general practice consultations. Evidence from economic evaluations is needed to inform the future delivery of PMASs.

KW - community pharmacy services

KW - general practice

KW - pharmacy

KW - self care

KW - primary health care

U2 - 10.3399/bjgp13X669194

DO - 10.3399/bjgp13X669194

M3 - Article

VL - 63

SP - e472-e481

JO - The British Journal of General Practice

JF - The British Journal of General Practice

SN - 0960-1643

IS - 612

ER -