OBJECTIVE: The number of pharmaceutical items issued on prescription is continually rising and contributing to spiralling healthcare costs. Although there is some data highlighting the quantity, in terms of weight of medicines returned specifically to community pharmacies, little is known about the specific details of such returns or other destinations for wasted medications. This pilot study has been designed to investigate the types and amounts of medicines returned to both general practices (GPs) and associated local community pharmacies determining the reasons why these medicines have been returned. METHOD: The study was conducted in eight community pharmacies and five GP surgeries within East Birmingham over a 4-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Reason for return and details of returned medication. RESULTS: A total of 114 returns were made during the study: 24 (21.1) to GP surgeries and 90 (78.9) to community pharmacies. The total returns comprised 340 items, of which 42 (12.4) were returned to GPs and 298 (87.6) to pharmacies, with the mean number of items per return being 1.8 and 3.3, respectively. Half of the returns in the study were attributed to the doctor changing or stopping the medicine; 23.7 of returns were recorded as excess supplies or clearout often associated with patients' death and 3.5 of returns were related to adverse drug reactions. Cardiovascular drugs were most commonly returned, amounting to 28.5 of the total drugs returned during the study. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this pilot study indicate that unused medicines impose a significant financial burden on the National Health Service as well as a social burden on the United Kingdom population. Further studies are examining the precise nature of returned medicines and possible solutions to these issues.
OBJECTIVE: The number of pharmaceutical items issued on prescription is continually rising and contributing to spiralling healthcare costs. Although there is some data highlighting the quantity, in terms of weight of medicines returned specifically to community pharmacies, little is known about the specific details of such returns or other destinations for wasted medications. This pilot study has been designed to investigate the types and amounts of medicines returned to both general practices (GPs) and associated local community pharmacies determining the reasons why these medicines have been returned. METHOD: The study was conducted in eight community pharmacies and five GP surgeries within East Birmingham over a 4-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Reason for return and details of returned medication. RESULTS: A total of 114 returns were made during the study: 24 (21.1) to GP surgeries and 90 (78.9) to community pharmacies. The total returns comprised 340 items, of which 42 (12.4) were returned to GPs and 298 (87.6) to pharmacies, with the mean number of items per return being 1.8 and 3.3, respectively. Half of the returns in the study were attributed to the doctor changing or stopping the medicine; 23.7 of returns were recorded as excess supplies or clearout often associated with patients' death and 3.5 of returns were related to adverse drug reactions. Cardiovascular drugs were most commonly returned, amounting to 28.5 of the total drugs returned during the study. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this pilot study indicate that unused medicines impose a significant financial burden on the National Health Service as well as a social burden on the United Kingdom population. Further studies are examining the precise nature of returned medicines and possible solutions to these issues.
Authors: Dana W Kolpin; Edward T Furlong; Michael T Meyer; E Michael Thurman; Steven D Zaugg; Larry B Barber; Herbert T Buxton Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: María José Modroño Freire; Juana Romero Pita; María Jesús Sánchéz Cougil; Maria Aurora Expósito Alfonso Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Peter H O'Donnell; Keith Danahey; Michael Jacobs; Nisha R Wadhwa; Shennin Yuen; Angela Bush; Yasmin Sacro; Matthew J Sorrentino; Mark Siegler; William Harper; Andrea Warrick; Soma Das; Don Saner; Christopher L Corless; Mark J Ratain Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 3.908