Background As described in the national guidelines to achieve continuum of quality use of medicines between hospital and community, hospitals must ensure that continuity of care is not interrupted by the inability of patients to obtain medication on discharge. Aims To develop a survey tool to assess continuity of medication supply and provision of medicines information on discharge. To evaluate these parameters in patients discharged with either discharge medication or prescriptions for dispensing by a community pharmacy. Method Non‐surgical patients aged over 65 years or their carers from one metropolitan teaching hospital and 2 rural hospitals were interviewed by phone 5 to 7 days post‐discharge. 2 interview phases (n = 229) using different interviewers and the same survey tool were conducted in 2005 and 2006. Results 8/227 patients (3%) ran out and missed doses of medication (7 patients 1 day, 1 patient 4 days), with no differences detected between patients receiving discharge prescriptions or discharge medication. Providing medication or prescriptions appeared to influence the timing of doctor visits (average 3 days for metropolitan, 7 to 11 days for rural). 53% of metropolitan doctor visits were for prescriptions only. 90% of rural patients obtained medication on the day of discharge or the day after. 53% of respondents recalled receiving a medication list. 4% did not know the names of their medication nor when to take them; 17% knew some details but not all. Conclusion The survey tool appears to provide consistent data over multiple sites and multiple interviewers. The risk of running out of medication in rural areas would be higher if discharge medications replaced prescriptions due to difficulties accessing doctors. Strategies identified to improve discharge processes include clinical pharmacy checks of discharge prescriptions and more flexibility in supply quantities.

Objectives To identify factors influencing Australian consumer decision‐making and attitudes towards non‐prescription medicine (NPM) purchases, pharmacy's role in providing these medications and views around sources of evidence for effectiveness of these products. Methods Cross‐sectional survey of a general population sample of 1731 adults using an Australian online consumer panel stratified by gender, age and location (State/Territory). Beliefs about NPM purchases and evidence of their efficacy were assessed using a 5‐point Likert scale (strongly disagree‐strongly agree). Non‐parametric measures (Ridit analysis and Mann–Whitney U‐test) were used to explore associations between responses and previous experience with medicines. Key findings The most important factors when purchasing NPMs were effectiveness and safety. However, personal experience was the most common method of determining effectiveness. Most respondents believed buying NPMs in pharmacies gave access to advice, but were less likely to agree that pharmacies were associated with safe and effective treatments. Around half the respondents agreed that it is wrong to sell treatments lacking scientific evidence; many also agreed that it is up to consumers to decide what they want even without scientific evidence. Individuals experiencing an ineffective NPM were less likely to trust scientific evidence of efficacy as the sole source of effectiveness information; regular prescription medicine users often agreed that scientific evidence is needed to support effectiveness. Conclusions Consumers have conflicting views regarding the need for scientific evidence and the desire for patient autonomy in NPM purchases. This presents a challenge for pharmacists wishing to maintain professional obligations to provide evidence‐based treatments to consumers.