Problem: Medication management in the NHS has been highlighted by the UK Department of Health as an area for improvement. Pharmacist participation on post-take (post-admission) ward rounds was shown to reduce medication errors and reduced prescribing costs in the USA and in UK teaching hospitals, which can contribute to improved medication management. We sought to demonstrate the problem in our hospital by collecting data on prescribing practice from three consecutive general medical post-take ward rounds. Setting: Northwick Park Hospital, a district general hospital in north-west London, which provides acute medical services to a population of 300 000. Strategy for change: A pharmacist was invited to become a member of the post-take ward round team that reviewed medical patients admitted within the preceding 24 hours. Patients also continued to receive care from a ward based pharmacist. Patient notes were analysed for cost of drugs on admission and discharge, discrepancies between admission drug history and pharmacist history, number of admission drugs stopped before discharge, and pharmacist recommendations. Pharmacist recommendations and actions were classified using a National Patient Safety Agency risk matrix. Effects of change: Discrepancies between the admission and the pharmacist derived drug history were noted in 26 of 50 in the pre-intervention group and 52 of 53 in the intervention group. The annual drug cost per patient following discharge increased by £181 in the pre-intervention group and by £122 in the intervention group. Five pre-admission drugs were stopped in three pre-intervention patients saving £276 per annum, while the 42 drugs stopped in 19 intervention patients saved £4699 per annum. No ward based pharmacist recommendations were recorded in the pre-intervention group. Recommendations regarding drug choice, dose, and need for drug treatment were most common; 58 minor, 48 moderate and four major risks to patients were potentially avoided. Lessons learnt: The presence of a pharmacist on a post-take ward round improved the accuracy of drug history documentation, reduced prescribing costs, and decreased the potential risk to patients in our hospital. As a result of this work a full time pharmacist has now been funded to attend daily post-take ward rounds on a permanent basis. W e were aware that optimising medication management was often neglected when patients were admitted to our hospital, but no data existed to quantify this problem. A literature review showed that the problem was not unique to our hospital. The Department of Health in the UK estimates that 10% of patients admitted to UK hospitals as an emergency suffer some kind of safety incident.

Prescription medicines are increasingly being switched to over-the-counter (OTC, nonprescription) status in the developed world, with the support of government policy. These changes may provide greater choice for individuals and offer potential savings in government spending on health while expanding the market for pharmaceutical companies. However, there is concern regarding the safety of these reclassifications. Elderly people are the largest consumers of prescription and OTC medicines and are more vulnerable to drug adverse effects and the risks of multiple or inappropriate medications. Commonly purchased agents such as NSAIDs have recognised adverse effects which have been shown to be more common in the elderly. Furthermore, all sedatives, including antihistamines, have a propensity to cause falls in older people. As many doctors do not ask patients about OTC medicine use, problems related to use of these drugs may go undetected. Furthermore, the increased availability of OTCs may result in a delay in patients consulting medical practitioners for potentially serious conditions, although this has not so far been investigated. In the UK, the recent switch of a low-dose HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) to OTC status has caused concern. Although there might theoretically be some benefits from improved access to medications used in primary and secondary prevention of heart disease, the actual outcomes of use of this reduced dose of the statin will be difficult or impossible for patients or practitioners to monitor. OTC drug use implies a mutual responsibility for communication between patients and health professionals that in practice is not always achieved. Epidemiological research is needed to investigate patterns of OTC use and evaluate the potential risks of OTC medicines in elderly people. Governments, regulatory bodies, professionals and the drug industry have a responsibility to ensure that robust systems are in place if the increased use of OTC medicines by elderly people is to be safe and effective.

Non-adherence to prescribed medicines has been described as “a worldwide problem of striking magnitude”, diminishing treatment effects and wasting resources. Evidence syntheses report current adherence interventions achieve modest improvements at best, and highlight the poor progress toward the longstanding aim of a gold-standard intervention, tailored to meet individual need. Techniques such as motivational interviewing and health coaching, which aim to facilitate patient-centred care and improve patient resourcefulness, have shown promise in supporting adherence, especially in patients with psychological barriers to medicine-taking, such as illness perceptions and health beliefs. Despite a plethora of research, there is little recognition that the nature and complexity of non-adherence is such that a one-size-fits-all approach to interventions is never likely to suffice. This commentary re-visits the call for adherence interventions to be tailored to meet individual need, by considering what this means for day-to-day practice and how this can be achieved. It provides an update on advances in psychological theory to identify the root cause of an individual’s non-adherence to encourage matching of provided adherence support. It also provides a practical perspective by considering exemplars of innovative practice and evaluating the day-to-day practicalities of taking a novel approach.

ObjectivesOur aim was to explore junior doctors’ attitudes and awareness around concepts related to medication review, in order to find ways to change the culture for reviewing, altering and stopping inappropriate or unnecessary medicines. Having already demonstrated the value of team working with senior doctors and pharmacists and the use of a medication review tool, we are now looking to engage first year clinicians and undergraduates in the process.MethodAn online survey about medication review was distributed among all 42 foundation year one (FY1) doctors at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in November 2014. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.ResultsTwenty doctors completed the survey (48%). Of those, 17 believed that it was the pharmacist's duty to review medicines; and 15 of 20 stated the general practitioner (GP). Sixteen of 20 stated that they would consult a senior doctor first before stopping medication. Eighteen of 20 considered the GP and consultant to be responsible for alterations, rather than themselves. Sixteen of 20 respondents were not aware of the availability of a medication review tool. Seventeen of 20 felt that more support from senior staff would help them become involved with medication review.ConclusionsJunior doctors report feeling uncomfortable altering mediations without consulting a senior first. They appear to be building confidence with prescribing in their first year but not about the medication review process or questioning the drugs already prescribed. Consideration should be given to what we have termed a ‘bottom-up’ educational approach to provide early experience of and change the culture around medication review, to include the education of undergraduate and foundation doctors and pharmacists.