Characteristics of pharmaceutical opinions written in a Quebec community pharmacy

Abstract

Objective: To describe the characteristics of pharmaceutical opinions written in a community pharmacy and to estimate the possible effects of these opinions on patient drug profiles.

Design: Retrospective survey.

Setting: The community pharmacy where these opinions were written is located in a rural area of the province of Quebec. Only health-related items are sold and no merchandise is displayed in this pharmacy.

Participants: Ten pharmacists worked at this pharmacy during the period of the study.

Intervention: Pharmacists were paid when they sent advice to a patient or a physician about the patient's drug profile or about the therapeutic value of a prescribed treatment. This survey included recommendations made from 1978 to 1983. A sample of 600 opinions was drawn at random from a total of 1992 opinions that had been written at the site of the study.

Main outcome measure: The impact of each opinion was assessed by analyzing patient drug profiles for three months after the opinion was written to determine if the recipient had followed the pharmacist's recommendation.

Results: Pharmacists, on their own initiative, sent 97.9 percent of the opinions. Only 1.7 percent of the opinions were requested by patients and 0.4 percent by physicians. Most opinions were addressed to patients (86.7 percent) rather than to physicians (13.3 percent). Almost four of five recommendations sent to patients were about compliance (45.1 percent) or were suggestions for improving the therapeutic effect of a medication or replacing a drug with nondrug treatment (33.4 percent). The three most common recommendations sent to prescribers were to replace one drug with another (25 percent), to change the dose or dosing schedule of a drug (16.3 percent), and to discontinue drug treatment (16.3 percent). Chemical stability, underuse or overuse of a medication, and adverse effects were the most frequent causes of recommendations sent to patients. Adverse effects, interactions, and the underuse of a medication were the most frequent reasons for recommendations sent to physicians. The proportion of recommendations that were implemented was 77.7 percent for patients and 58.1 percent for physicians.

Conclusions: The pharmaceutical opinion seemed to be a good means of communicating with patients and prescribers on a wide variety of problems encountered in a community pharmacy. It allowed pharmacists to be paid for their expertise even if a drug was not dispensed. Also, the pharmaceutical opinion could compensate for the loss of income when the pharmacist recommended replacing a prescribed medicine with nondrug treatment.