Skin conditions in the pharmacy: consumer satisfaction and economic considerations

Methodological considerations in clinical outcomes assessment of pharmacy-based minor ailments management: A systematic review

Background

The accessibility of services within community pharmacies provides an ideal opportunity to manage minor ailments, yet over £1.1 billion is spent by the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) in managing minor ailments in high cost settings. There is a need to review the evidence base around clinical effectiveness of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments since the absence of such may lead to under-utilisation of pharmacy services and non-implementation of available pharmacy service models. This study aimed to systematically review the methodological approaches used to assess clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments in the research literature.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant literature using the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, IPA, CRD, CDSR, and Google Scholar from publication year 2000 onwards. Studies were included if they evaluated clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of any minor ailments, with or without a comparator setting such as Emergency Departments (EDs) or general practices. Screening and selection of titles, abstracts and full texts followed by data extraction and quality assessment (QA) was conducted. Paired researchers, from the team, reviewed papers using a protocol based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). QA was undertaken using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Reporting was conducted in accordance with PRISMA checklist and statements.

Results

A total of 19 studies were included. The majority of studies were observational, conducted in community pharmacies, and did not use a comparator participant group nor a comparator setting. Interventions included counselling, medicines supply and provision of advice on the management of minor ailments. One study used the randomised controlled trial (RCT) design with majority of the study utilising observational design. A range of clinical outcomes including symptom severity, pattern, resolution, and quality of life were reported. Methods used for the assessment of clinical outcomes were, overall, poorly reported. This included a lack of information on the development and validation of the data collection tools and the timing of baseline and follow-up data collection. Adverse clinical outcomes data were collected by only seven studies.

Conclusions

Currently, there are methodological limitations in the studies that have sought to assess clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments. Such lack of high quality evidence may contribute to failings to shift care from high cost settings, such as EDs and general practices. Generation of high quality evidence is likely to influence public choices when seeking care for minor ailments. There is scope for development of a core outcomes set specific to minor ailments management and development of a validated methodology for measuring such outcomes in a research study.

An exploratory study demonstrating the diagnostic ability of healthcare professionals in primary care using online case studies for common skin conditions

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic ability of pharmacists, nurses and general practitioners (GPs) for a range of skin conditions.

Methods

An online study comprising 10 specifically developed dermatological case studies containing a digital image of the skin condition and a short case history. A total of 60 participants (20 representing each of pharmacists, GPs and primary care nurses) were required to identify the skin condition as well as the features in the case history that supported the diagnosis and the recommended first-line management approach for the condition.

Key findings

The mean diagnostic scores for each group were GPs = 8.8 (95% confidence interval, CI, 7.9–9.6), pharmacists = 6.2 (95% CI, 5.4–6.9) and nurses = 7.0 (95% CI, 6.1–7.9). Post hoc analysis revealed that the difference in mean diagnostic scores was significant (P < 0.05) between GPs and both pharmacists and nurses. However, pharmacists' diagnostic accuracy was similar to GPs' for some skin conditions such as tinea corporis, scabies and plantar warts and overall at least 40% of pharmacists correctly identified all conditions.

Conclusion

This small study has demonstrated that for all of the skin conditions considered, pharmacists' overall diagnostic scores were significantly different from those of GPs but similar to those of nurses for the conditions assessed. However, further work with a larger sample is required to determine the accuracy of these preliminary findings and to establish whether advice given by pharmacists in practice results in the appropriate course of action being taken.