IJPP 2003, 11: 199-208
© 2003 Int J Pharm Pract
Received December 22, 2002
Accepted August 6, 2003
ISSN 0961-7671

Greater Glasgow Primary Care Trust

Fiona MacRae, prescribing support pharmacist
Richard Lowrie, lead clinical pharmacist
Alister MacLaren, lead clinical pharmacist

School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Dundee

Rosaline S. Barbour, professor of health and social care

University of Aberdeen

John Norrie, director, Aberdeen Trials Service

Correspondence: Ms MacRae, c/o Primary Care Lead Clinical Pharmacists, Trust Headquarters, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, 1055 Great Western Road, Glasgow, Scotland G12 0XH. Email: fifimacr@hotmail.com

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank all the GPs, practice managers and prescribing support pharmacists who gave their time to participate in the pilot work, and to distribute and complete the postal survey. Thanks also to Joan Scott and David Milne for helpful comments on original copies of the manuscript. This study was funded by Greater Glasgow Primary Care Trust.

Original Papers

Pharmacist-led medication review clinics in general practice: the views of Greater Glasgow GPs

Fiona MacRae, Richard Lowrie, Alister MacLaren, Rosaline S. Barbour and John Norrie

Abstract
Objectives To ascertain general practitioners’ views of a pharmacist-led medication review (PLMR) service. In particular, to quantify the percentage of GPs who perceived PLMR to be a useful service to their practices; to explore key service benefits, problems and areas for future improvement; and to quantify the percentage of GPs who believed service benefits outweighed problems.

Methods Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of six GPs informed the development of a self-completion postal questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent to all 258 GPs in the 82 practices where PLMR clinics were held. GP views on aspects of the PLMR process were elicited using a Likert scale. Closed questions sought views on overall service value. Free-text responses were sought on benefits, problems and areas for future improvement.

Key findings The response rate was 84% for GPs (93% of practices were represented). Ninety-five per cent of respondents considered PLMR to be a useful service. Key perceived benefits (improved prescribing practice, raised standards of patient care and satisfaction, and increased GP knowledge and confidence) outweighed problems (space and time constraints, limited GP-pharmacist contact, occasional patient dissatisfaction). Only a minority of GPs felt that the written pharmacy referrals relating to specific patients were inappropriate. Views were divided as to whether PLMR increased or decreased practice workload. Suggestions for future improvements included increased GP-pharmacist communication and extended pharmacist roles.

Conclusion The Glasgow model of PLMR deployed across a large Primary Care Trust by a team of pharmacists was viewed by those GPs who had received input as a useful service. The majority of GPs exposed to the service believed benefits outweighed problems.