International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 342–350 | Cite as

Community pharmacists’ perceptions of services that benefit older people in New Zealand

  • June TordoffEmail author
  • Shih Yen Chang
  • Pauline T. Norris
Research Article


Background There is limited information in New Zealand about community pharmacists’ perceptions of services that benefit older people. Objectives To explore the perceptions of community pharmacists’ of services that benefit older people; the benefits perceived; and the experiences of pharmacists providing such services. Setting Community pharmacies in New Zealand. Methods A cross-sectional purpose-developed survey was carried out of all community pharmacies in New Zealand. This was followed by twenty qualitative telephone interviews of pharmacists identified as providing at least one specialized service. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded for themes using constant comparison. Main outcome measures Community pharmacists’ opinions and perceptions in the cross-sectional survey and qualitative interviews. Results Responses were received from pharmacists in 403/905 evaluable pharmacies. All pharmacies provided some baseline services (advice, dispensing of prescriptions, medicines disposal) and 90% provided home deliveries of medicines. Adherence to medicines was supported by compliance packaging (96%), medication review (Medicines Use Review, MUR) (28%), and repeat prescription reminders (27%). Thirty-five percent provided screening (e.g. cholesterol, blood pressure), and 32% provided medicines education to community groups. Compliance packaging and home delivery were thought the services most beneficial for older people, and should help people adhere to their medicines. The 20 pharmacists interviewed by telephone provided 20 different specialized services (median 2, range 1–4). These included MUR, services to residential homes, visiting educators/special clinics, INR monitoring, services to hospices, and flu vaccination. Benefits perceived included improvements in adherence, patient safety, and patient-knowledge of medicines, and convenient access to services. “Patient need” was a frequent driver of services, and common facilitators for services were having appropriate training/skills, co-operation with health professionals, peer or expert support, sufficient time and funding. A lack of these facilitators were considered barriers as were resistance from general practitioners or the general public, or high set-up costs. Conclusion Community pharmacists in New Zealand perceived they provide a range of services of potential benefit to older people for managing their medicines. Establishing new services requires cooperation from other health professionals, peer support, training, funding and time. Further research into patients’ outcomes from new and established services is needed.


Aged Community pharmacy services Elderly Interprofessional relations New Zealand Pharmacists Professional role Qualitative research Surveys 



We thank the pharmacists who participated in the survey and interviews for their willingness to participate and their time.


The study was funded by a grant from the Pharmacy Guild of New Zealand.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    Marengoni A, Angleman S, Melis R, Mangialasche F, Karp A, Garmen A, Meinow B, Fratiglioni L. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10(4):430–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Centres for Disease control and prevention. Prescription drug use continues to increase: US prescription drug data for 2007–2008. NCHS data brief. Number 42, September 2010. [cited 2/12/2011]. Available at
  3. 3.
    Kairuz T, Bye L, Birdsall R, Deng T, Man L, Ross A, et al. Identifying compliance issues with prescription medicines among older people: a pilot study. Drugs Aging. 2008;25(2):153–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tordoff JM, Bagge ML, Gray AR, Campbell AJ, Norris PT. Medicine-taking practices in community-dwelling people aged ≥75 years in New Zealand. Age Ageing. 2010;39(5):574–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tordoff J, Simonsen K, Thomson WM, Norris PT. “It’s just routine”. A qualitative study of medicine-taking amongst older people in New Zealand. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(2):154–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peterson GM, Fitzmaurice KD, Kruup H, Jackson SL, Rasiah RL. Cardiovascular risk screening program in Australian community pharmacies. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(3):373–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yuksel N, Majumdar SR, Biggs C, Tsuyuki RT. Community pharmacist-initiated screening program for osteoporosis: randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21(3):391–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fera T, Bluml BM, Ellis WM. Diabetes Ten City Challenge: final economic and clinical results. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2009;49(3):383–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emmerton L, Shaw J, Kheir N. Asthma management by New Zealand pharmacists: a pharmaceutical care demonstration project. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2003;28(5):395–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saini B, LeMay K, Emmerton L, Krass I, Smith L, Bosnic-Anticevich S, Stewart K, Burton D, Armour C. Asthma disease management-Australian pharmacists’ interventions improve patients’ asthma knowledge and this is sustained. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83(3):295–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Usami T, Hashiguchi M, Kouhara T, Ishii A, Nagata T, Mochizuki M. Impact of community pharmacists advocating immunization on influenza vaccination rates among the elderly. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2009;129(9):1063–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blalock SJ, Casteel C, Roth MT, Ferreri S, Demby KB, Shankar V. Impact of enhanced pharmacologic care on the prevention of falls: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2010;8(5):428–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bryant LJ, Coster G, Gamble GD, McCormick RN. The general practitioner-pharmacist collaboration (GPPC) study: a randomised controlled trial of clinical medication reviews in community pharmacy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2011;19(2):94–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Uttech KM, Lewis IK, Cohen HJ, Feussner JR. A method for assessing drug therapy appropriateness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(10):1045–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones EJ, Mackinnon NJ, Tsuyuki RT. Pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies: practice and research in Canada. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(9):1527–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Benrimoj SI, Roberts AS. Providing patient care in community pharmacies in Australia. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(11):1911–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Christensen DB, Farris KB. Pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies: practice and research in the US. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40(7–8):1400–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noyce PR. Providing patient care through community pharmacies in the UK: policy, practice, and research. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;4(5):861–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bush J, Langley CA, Wilson KA. The corporatization of community pharmacy: implications for service provision, the public health function, and pharmacy’s claims to professional status in the United Kingdom. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2009;5(4):305–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Windle J, Beresford R. Is rural pharmacy dying? Diagnosis and cure. N Z Pharm. 2006;26(6):22–4.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee E, Braund R, Tordoff J. Examining the first year of Medicines Use Review services provided by pharmacists in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2009;122(1293):3566.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Statistics New Zealand. Defining urban and rural New Zealand. [cited 2/12/2011]. Available at
  23. 23.
    Roberts AS, Benrimoj SI, Chen TF, Williams KA, Aslani P. Implementing cognitive services in community pharmacy: a review of facilitators used in practice change. Int J Pharm Pract. 2006;14(2):163–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Price A. Pharmaceutical care awards 2009: effectiveness of medicines use reviews in asthma. Pharm J. 2009;283(1):11.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Portlock J, Holden M, Patel S. A community pharmacy asthma MUR project in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Pharm J. 2009;282(4):109–12.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jackson SL, Peterson GM, Vial JH, Jupe DM. Improving the outcomes of anticoagulation: an evaluation of home follow-up of warfarin initiation. J Intern Med. 2004;256(2):137–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holland R, Desborough J, Goodyer L, Hall S, Wright D, Loke YK. Does pharmacist-led medication review help to reduce hospital admissions and deaths in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65(3):303–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roberts AS, Benrimoj SI, Chen TF, Williams KA, Aslani P. Practice change in community pharmacy: quantification of facilitators. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42(6):861–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scahill S, Harrison J, Sheridan J. The ABC of New Zealand’s ten year vision for pharmacists: awareness, barriers and consultation. Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17(3):135–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lincoln YS, Guba EG. But is it rigorous Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In: Williams DD, editor. New directions for programme evaluation, vol. 30. San Francisco: Josey-Bass; 1986. p. 73–84.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • June Tordoff
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shih Yen Chang
    • 1
  • Pauline T. Norris
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PharmacyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations