IJPP 2003, 11: 233-242
© 2003 Int J Pharm Pract
Received March 31, 2003
Accepted September 28, 2003
ISSN 0961-7671

School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, England

Sharon Phul, research associate
Stacey L. Cooper, research associate
Judith A. Cantrill, professor of medicines (usage, evaluation & policy)

Correspondence: Ms Phul, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, England M13 9PL.
E-mail: Sharon.phul@man.ac.uk

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank all the patients who responded to questionnaires and agreed to be interviewed as part of the electronic transmission of prescriptions (ETP) pilot.

Original Papers

Pharmacy services and patient choice: insights into differences between patient groups

Sharon Phul, Stacey L. Cooper and Judith A. Cantrill

Abstract
Objective To use data from the UK electronic transmission of prescriptions (ETP) pilots to examine whether, how and why choice and use of pharmacy services differ between patients, and how introduction of new services might impact on patient choice.

Method A postal questionnaire was distributed to 276 participating patients from the three pilot sites, and 211 (76%) were returned. Questionnaires were also completed by 64 patients who had chosen not to take part in the ETP pilots. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 26 questionnaire respondents who had opted to use a mail order pharmacy participating in ETP.

Key findings 54% of patients participating in ETP could have their prescription collected by pharmacy staff, but only half of these (52%) had made use of the service. Patients found it convenient to collect the prescription themselves (35%) and/or preferred to collect it themselves (34%). These patients were however happy to use the new service offered by ETP. Reasons for using the same pharmacy centred on practical aspects, such as proximity to the GP practice (65%) and short waiting times (27%). Patients also positively rated their experiences of obtaining their prescription from their GP practice (80%) and the medication from their pharmacy (82%). Patients who were offered both ETP and mail order pharmacy but chose not to participate (n = 31) were more opposed to the mail order aspect than to ETP (70% vs 14% respectively). Patients not participating who were offered ETP without mail order pharmacy (n = 33) most frequently stated that they found the current system to be convenient (23%). Interviewees using the mail order pharmacy found not having to visit either the GP practice or pharmacy to be convenient and a repeat prescription reminder service to be advantageous.

Conclusion The introduction of ETP and mail order to pharmacy services does have some impact on patient choice. Different aspects of pharmacy services appeal to different groups of patients. Convenience was paramount to the majority of patients in this study, but its definition differed between patients. The data will support the pharmacy profession in developments that enhance patient choice and optimise service use.