Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31053122›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Evaluation of a new patient consultation initiative in community pharmacy for ear, nose and throat and eye conditions.

Gillian Hall, Tania Cork, Simon White, Hayley Berry, Louise Smith

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. "Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The burden of acute eye conditions on different healthcare providers: a retrospective population-based study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Community pharmacist interventions in ear health: a scoping review.Primary health care research & development · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gillian HallSouth Staffordshire Local Pharmaceutical Committee, Keele, UK.
Tania CorkNorth Staffordshire and Stoke-On-Trent Local Pharmaceutical Committee, Keele, UK.
Simon WhiteSchool of Pharmacy, Keele University, Keele, UK. s.j.white@keele.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0096-251X
Hayley BerryCentre for Postgraduate Pharmacy Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Louise SmithCentre for Postgraduate Pharmacy Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
University of Manchester · GBKeele University · GB

Funding

NHS Staffordshire and Shropshire Local Professional Network for Pharmacy n/aNorth West Midlands Urgent and Emergency Care Network n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity pharmacy Common Ailments Services can ease the considerable workload pressures on primary and secondary care services. However, evidence is needed to determine whether there are benefits of extending such services beyond their typically limited scope. This study therefore aimed to evaluate a new community pharmacy model of a service for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) and eye conditions who would otherwise have had to seek primary care appointments or emergency care.

methodsPeople with specified ENT or eye conditions registered with General Practitioners in Staffordshire or Shropshire who presented at participating community pharmacies were offered a consultation with a pharmacist trained to provide the service. The service included provision of relevant self-care advice and, where clinically appropriate, supply of non-prescription medicines or specified prescription-only medicines (POMs), including antibiotics, under Patient Group Directions. Patients received a follow up telephone call from the pharmacist five days later. Data were collected on the characteristics of patients accessing the service, the proportion of those who were treated by the pharmacist without subsequently seeing another health professional about the same condition, and patient reported satisfaction from a questionnaire survey.

resultsA total of 408 patients accessed the service, of whom 61% received a POM, 15% received advice and medicine supplied under the common ailments service, 9% received advice and purchased a medicine, 10% received advice only and 5% were referred onwards. Sore throat accounted for 45% of diagnoses where a POM was supplied, 32% were diagnosed with acute otitis media and 15% were diagnosed with acute bacterial conjunctivitis. The number of patients successfully followed up was 309 (76%), of whom 264 (85%) had not seen another health professional for the same symptoms, whilst 45 (15%) had seen another health professional, usually their GP. The questionnaire was completed by 259 patients (response rate 63%) of whom 96% reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the service.

conclusionsThe study demonstrates that pharmacists can effectively diagnose and treat these conditions, with a high degree of patient satisfaction. Wider adoption of such service models could substantially benefit primary care and emergency care services.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesEye DiseasesHumansOtorhinolaryngologic DiseasesPatient SatisfactionPharmacistsReferral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesCommon ailments schemesCommunity pharmacy servicesMinor ailments schemesSelf-care

Identifiers

PMID31053122
PMCPMC6500063
OpenAlexW2946904257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.