Pharmacists and the pharmaceutical industry: guidelines for ethical interactions. American College of Clinical Pharmacy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: To review (1) the published evidence on the information provided with prescribed and purchased medicines by pharmacists and pharmacy assistants, (2) clients' expectations of advice about medicines from community pharmacies and their experience and use of it, and (3) appropriateness and rigour of study methods used. METHODS: Papers, published between 1980 and 1995 inclusively, were identified based on searches of on-line databases, a published literature index, key pharmacy practice journals and cited references in the bibliographies of published papers. Those papers selected reported research findings on any aspect of medicines-related communications and the provision of advice about medicines to members of the public who visited pharmacies in the UK. The comparatively small volume of work and lack of design consistency meant that a subjective assessment, rather than a criteria-based objective review, was deemed appropriate. RESULTS: Forty-two suitable studies were identified and are reviewed. No common definition of 'advice' has emerged. Most studies reported were quantitative, concentrating on the frequency of advice-giving in community pharmacies and only one study considered the impact of advice on outcome. The quality of advice given was judged highly variable, although pharmacists' referrals, where made, were considered appropriate. Given that pharmacy assistants appear to make most of the medicine sales, remarkably few studies addressed their contribution to advice-giving. The review can provide little insight into what determines when advice is provided, but it does illuminate the disparity between the advice that clients say they want and what they actually seek. CONCLUSIONS: Where there appears to be a consensus that advice-giving in community pharmacies is wanted, this review reveals a lack of shared understanding between consumer bodies and the pharmacy profession about who needs advice and when and how it should be given. The need for unsolicited advice-giving associated with the sale of medicines is particularly contentious. With the current programme of deregulation of medicines, this is an increasingly important issue to resolve. The authors suggest a need for a consensus-building forum to generate guidelines that meet shared expectations between clients, community pharmacists, government and the pharmaceutical industry.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Whether and how drug information centers respond to calls from the public that involve ethical issues was studied. A survey describing six ethical dilemmas typical of those presented by calls from the public was mailed to pharmacists in 154 drug information centers to see how the questions would be handled. Centers that had written policies governing responses to questions with ethical implications were asked to submit those policies. One hundred twenty-six centers (82%) responded to the survey; of these, 81 (64.3%) answered questions from the public. There were no significant differences in characteristics between centers that did and did not respond to public calls. The case analyses, completed only by pharmacists in centers that responded to public calls, covered such issues as invasion of privacy, social responsibility, personal liability, and interference with the patient-physician relationship. Respondents exercised a wide degree of discretion in determining if they would answer a question; for example, while only 4% would not answer a question concerning the efficacy of a weight-loss diet patch, 77% reported they would not respond to a caller asking for information on drugs that could interfere with the results of a polygraph test. Although respondents often cited institutional policy as the reason for failing to respond to a question, none submitted a copy of such a policy. The pharmacists' responses indicated a high degree of moral and social sensitivity; nonetheless, written policies should be developed to assist drug information center staff members in handling questions that have ethical implications.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.