OBJECTIVE: This study tested an intervention model which sought to minimise over-the-counter (OTC) drug misuse and abuse in community pharmacies. METHOD: Pharmacists in six community pharmacies in the Greater Belfast area volunteered to participate in the study. The intervention model consisted of client identification and recruitment, treatment and referrals, and finally follow-up data collection and outcome measurements. All pharmacists participated in semi-structured interviews to explore their views and experiences of the study. RESULTS: Pharmacists identified 196 cases of suspected abuse/misuse. Pharmacists approached 70 of the identified clients during the six-month study; some clients agreed to stop using the product of abuse/misuse, used an alternative, or had been switched to a maintenance prescription under general practitioner (GP) supervision. No client proceeded to completion of the follow-up phase (e.g. health-related quality of life). Analysis of the interviews revealed that pharmacists had encountered some difficulties in approaching potential clients, but had used skills gained in the study in other aspects of their practice. CONCLUSIONS: Some difficulties were encountered in implementing the harm minimisation model, but these may be alleviated by further training and greater collaborative working. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Notwithstanding the challenges faced in the study, this approach to harm minimisation should be considered for wider implementation in community pharmacy.
OBJECTIVE: This study tested an intervention model which sought to minimise over-the-counter (OTC) drug misuse and abuse in community pharmacies. METHOD: Pharmacists in six community pharmacies in the Greater Belfast area volunteered to participate in the study. The intervention model consisted of client identification and recruitment, treatment and referrals, and finally follow-up data collection and outcome measurements. All pharmacists participated in semi-structured interviews to explore their views and experiences of the study. RESULTS: Pharmacists identified 196 cases of suspected abuse/misuse. Pharmacists approached 70 of the identified clients during the six-month study; some clients agreed to stop using the product of abuse/misuse, used an alternative, or had been switched to a maintenance prescription under general practitioner (GP) supervision. No client proceeded to completion of the follow-up phase (e.g. health-related quality of life). Analysis of the interviews revealed that pharmacists had encountered some difficulties in approaching potential clients, but had used skills gained in the study in other aspects of their practice. CONCLUSIONS: Some difficulties were encountered in implementing the harm minimisation model, but these may be alleviated by further training and greater collaborative working. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Notwithstanding the challenges faced in the study, this approach to harm minimisation should be considered for wider implementation in community pharmacy.