ArticlePrimary health care research & development2020
An investigation into the number and nature of the urgent care consultations managed and referred by community pharmacists in South-East England.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How can community pharmacists be supported to manage skin conditions? A multistage stakeholder research prioritisation exercise.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Evaluating the implementation of a referral system for virtual pharmacy counselling in a province-wide nurse phone line.Healthcare management forum · 2023Article
- Evaluating the relationship between information literacy and evidence-based nursing and their impact on knowledge and attitude of nurses working in hospitals affiliated to Kerman University of Medical Sciences on medication errors.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity pharmacies are recognised as an under-utilised, accessible resource that could support the urgent care agenda. This study aimed to provide a snapshot of the number and nature of urgent care requests presented to a sample of community pharmacies in three counties in southern England, to determine how requests are managed, whether management is appropriate, as assessed by a group of experts, and whether customers receiving the care are satisfied with pharmacists' interventions.
methodsA representative sample of pharmacists across the region was invited to keep a log-book documenting all urgent care requests over a two-week period. Data were analysed to estimate frequency and type of requests and to compare consultations in core and non-core hours. Log-book entries were scrutinised blind by an expert panel to determine appropriateness of pharmacist's responses. Customers receiving pharmacists' interventions were surveyed to assess satisfaction.
resultsSeventeen pharmacies kept log-books detailing 432 urgent care consultations, equating to 13 consultations per pharmacy per week. Of these, 70% (n = 302) were dealt with by the pharmacist in-house with 30% (n = 130) resulting in referrals. Locum pharmacists were significantly more likely to refer to other NHS services than regular pharmacists. Over half the requests were for symptom management, skin problems presenting most commonly (38% of all symptoms presented). Forty-seven percent of consultations were considered to have 'averted the need for other NHS services'. Pharmacists' referral (but not assessment of urgency) was deemed appropriate by the expert panel in 90% of consultations. Ninety-five percent of customers surveyed were satisfied with the service and would use the pharmacy again.
conclusionExtrapolating findings across the study population (approximately 4.4 million) suggests that community pharmacists manage over 11 500 urgent care consultations per week, with 8050 managed independently. These prevent approximately 5400 other NHS encounters, while also meeting customer expectations and expert panel endorsement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.