Search

Objective To establish research priorities which will support the development and delivery of community pharmacy initiatives for the management of skin conditions.Design An iterative, multistage stakeholder consultation consisting of online survey, participant workshops and prioritisation meeting.Setting All data collection took place online with participants completing a survey (delivered via the JISC Online Survey platform, between July 2021 and January 2022) and participating in online workshops and meetings (hosted on Microsoft Teams between April and July 2022).Participants 174 community pharmacists and pharmacy staff completed the online survey.53 participants participated in the exploratory workshops (19 community pharmacists, 4 non-pharmacist members of pharmacy staff and 30 members of the public). 4 healthcare professionals who were unable to attend a workshop participated in a one-to-one interview.29 participants from the workshops took part in the prioritisation meeting (5 pharmacists/pharmacy staff, 1 other healthcare professional and 23 members of the public).Results Five broad areas of potential research need were identified in the online survey: (1) identifying and diagnosing skin conditions; (2) skin conditions in skin of colour; (3) when to refer skin conditions; (4) disease-specific concerns and (5) product-specific concerns.These were explored and refined in the workshops to establish 10 potential areas for research, which will support pharmacists in managing skin conditions. These were ranked in the prioritisation meeting. Among those prioritised were topics which consider how pharmacists work with other healthcare professionals to identify and manage skin conditions.Conclusions Survey responses and stakeholder workshops all recognised the potential for community pharmacists to play an active role in the management of common skin conditions. Future research may support this in the generation of resources for pharmacists, in encouraging public take-up of pharmacy services, and in evaluating the most effective provision for dealing with skin conditions.

BackgroundWe previously reported on a randomised trial demonstrating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER). We sought to investigate whether PINCER was effective in reducing hazardous prescribing when rolled out at scale in UK general practices.Methods and findingsWe used a multiple interrupted time series design whereby successive groups of general practices received the PINCER intervention between September 2015 and April 2017. We used 11 prescribing safety indicators to identify potentially hazardous prescribing and collected data over a maximum of 16 quarterly time periods. The primary outcome was a composite of all the indicators; a composite for indicators associated with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding was also reported, along with 11 individual indicators of hazardous prescribing. Data were analysed using logistic mixed models for the quarterly event numbers with the appropriate denominator, and calendar time included as a covariate. PINCER was implemented in 370 (94.1%) of 393 general practices covering a population of almost 3 million patients in the East Midlands region of England; data were successfully extracted from 343 (92.7%) of these practices. For the primary composite outcome, the PINCER intervention was associated with a decrease in the rate of hazardous prescribing of 16.7% (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.86) at 6 months and 15.3% (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.90) at 12 months postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 26.4% (22,503 patients in the numerator/853,631 patients in the denominator) to 20.1% (11,901 patients in the numerator/591,364 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.1% (3,868 patients in the numerator/201,992 patients in the denominator). The greatest reduction in hazardous prescribing associated with the intervention was observed for the indicators associated with GI bleeding; for the GI composite indicator, there was a decrease of 23.9% at both 6 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.80) and 12 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.82) postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 31.4 (16,185 patients in the numerator/515,879 patients in the denominator) to 21.2% (7,607 patients in the numerator/358,349 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.5% (2,369 patients in the numerator/121,534 patients in the denominator). We adjusted for calendar time and practice, but since this was an observational study, the findings may have been influenced by unknown confounding factors or behavioural changes unrelated to the PINCER intervention. Data were also not collected for all practices at 6 months and 12 months postintervention.ConclusionsThe PINCER intervention, when rolled out at scale in routine clinical practice, was associated with a reduction in hazardous prescribing by 17% and 15% at 6 and 12 months postintervention. The greatest reductions in hazardous prescribing were for indicators associated with risk of GI bleeding. These findings support the wider national rollout of PINCER in England.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic powerfully demonstrates the consequences of biothreats. Countries will want to know how to better prepare for future events. The Global Health Security Index (GHSI) is a broad, independent assessment of 195 countries’ preparedness for biothreats that may aid this endeavour. However, to be useful, the GHSI’s external validity must be demonstrated. We aimed to validate the GHSI against a range of external metrics to assess how it could be utilised by countries.Methods Global aggregate communicable disease outcomes were correlated with GHSI scores and linear regression models were examined to determine associations while controlling for a number of global macroindices. GHSI scores for countries previously exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola and recipients of US Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) investment were compared with matched control countries. Possible content omissions in light of the progressing COVID-19 pandemic were assessed.Results GHSI scores for countries had strong criterion validity against the Joint External Evaluation ReadyScore (rho=0.82, p