Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 381–385 | Cite as

Community pharmacists’ perceptions of medicines use reviews and quality assurance by peer review

  • Geoffrey Harding
  • Michael WilcockEmail author
Research Article


Objectives To explore existing mechanism to ensure quality assurance of medicine use reviews (MURs), and to identify those parameters of an MUR that community pharmacists consider as indicators of quality. Setting Community pharmacists undertaking MURs in Cornwall, United Kingdom. Method A questionnaire was developed to investigate pharmacists’ attitudes towards MURs and towards quality assurance of MURs. Questionnaires were distributed during December 2008 to a sample of pharmacists in Cornwall accredited to provide the service. Main outcome measures Community pharmacists’ attitudes towards quality assurance of MURs. Results Fifty completed questionnaires were returned, a third of which were from locum pharmacists. The most frequently reported determinant for undertaking an MUR was the pharmacist’s judgement. Company policy to deliver MURs was acknowledged as a potential indicator of a sub-optimal MUR. Pharmacists shared a common sense of what constitutes a “poor” MUR but not what defines a quality one. Conclusion For peer review to operate as an effective mechanism to assure quality of MURs, pharmacists need to develop an effective forum to share their practice experiences.


Community pharmacists Drug use reviews Medicine use reviews Quality assurance Questionnaire United Kingdom 



The authors would like to thank the study participants.


This study was funded by NHS Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

Conflicts of interest statement

MW works for NHS Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.


  1. 1.
    Blenkinsopp A, Celino G. Long term conditions: integrating community pharmacy’s contribution. Report 3. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and Webstar Health; 2006. Accessed 2 Mar 2009.
  2. 2.
    Emblen G, Miller E. Home medicines review. The how and why for GPs. Aust Fam Physician. 2004;33:49–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Implementing the new community pharmacy contractual framework. Information for primary care trusts. London: Department of Health; 2005. Accessed 2 Mar 2009.
  4. 4.
    PSNC, BMA, NHS Employers. Briefing for GP practices. Achieving best value from the community pharmacy medicines use review service. London: NHS Employers; 2009. Accessed 2 Mar 2009.
  5. 5.
    Bradley F, Wagner AC, Elvey R, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Determinants of the uptake of medicines use reviews (MURs) by community pharmacies in England: a multi-method study. Health Policy. 2008;88:258–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Portlock J, Holden M, Patel S. A community pharmacy asthma MUR project in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Pharm J. 2009;282:109–12.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murphy JA. Employers applying pressure to conduct MURs. Pharm J. 2007;279:258.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richards A. Medicine use review. Pharm J. 2008;280:750.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. Competency framework for the assessment of pharmacists providing the medicine use review (MUR) and prescription intervention service. Accessed 3 Mar 2009.
  10. 10.
    James DL, Hatten S, Roberts D, John DN. Identifying criteria for assessing the quality of medicines use review referral documentation by community pharmacists. Int J Pharm Pract. 2008;16:365–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blenkinsopp A, Celino G, Bond C, Inch J. Medicine use reviews: the first year of a new community pharmacy contract. Pharm J. 2007;278:218–23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pharmacy in England—building on strengths—delivering the future. London: Stationery Office; 2008. ISBN 9780101734127 Accessed 3 Mar 2009.
  13. 13.
    Harding G, Wilcock M. What do pharmacists think of peer review of medicines use reviews? Pharm J. 2008;281:674–6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Latif A, Boardman H. Community pharmacists’ attitudes towards medicines use reviews and factors affecting the numbers performed. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30:536–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Urban R, Rivers P, Morgan J. Perceptions of medicine use reviews—the views of community pharmacists within a West Yorkshire Primary Care Trust. Pharm J. 2008;281:303–5.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bassi M, Wood K. Medicine use reviews: time for a new name? Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17(Suppl 2):B4–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Campion P, Hilton A, Irving G. Shared prescribing? A focus group study with community pharmacists. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2007;8:308–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gifford A, Murphy R, Anderson C. ‘Helpful others’: a vital resource for pharmacists’ learning? Int J Pharm Pract. 2008;16(Suppl 1):A9–A10.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scwartzkoff J. Evaluation of the Home Medicines Review Program: pharmacy component. Canberra: Urbis Keys Young; 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peninsula College of Medicine and DentistryExeterUK
  2. 2.NHS Cornwall & Isles of Scilly, c/o Pharmacy DepartmentRoyal Cornwall Hospitals NHS TrustTruro, CornwallUK

Personalised recommendations