Table 4 Performance against progression criteria

1 Recruitment

All three sites recruited at least ten patients. Two sites did this within 10 weeks and one site required two additional working days.

2 Patient receipt of MMT

Implementation of the MMT was delivered in all three sites. Study checklists were returned from site 1 (ten), site 2 (eight), and site 3 (ten) and indicated that all patients received the toolkit.

These data were corroborated by patient reports from 19 returned questionnaires from site 1 (eight), site 2 (three), and site 3 (eight) indicating that 17/19 patients received the MMT. In site 1, one patient could not remember receiving it; in site 3, one patient reported that they did not receive it (however the site checklist records that they did receive it and the patient answered other questionnaire items suggesting that they did in fact receive the MMT).

3 Transfer of discharge information

All three sites were able to adapt systems so that hospital pharmacists transferred this information. Checklists from sites 1 and 3 indicate that the information was transferred for all patients. The eight study checklists returned from site 2 indicate that information was transferred for four patients. This was because the hospital pharmacist mistakenly thought that this should not be done if they had not themselves seen the patient before discharge.

These data were corroborated by community pharmacy data returns: in site 1, eight reported receiving the patient’s discharge information; 4 reported doing so in site 2; and eight did so in site 3.

4. Offer of a community pharmacy medicines review or medicines discussion OR medicines reconciliation

Community pharmacies in all three areas reported acting on hospital information and reconciling medicines or where appropriate inviting the patient for a Medicines Use Review (MUR) or discussion about their medicines. Community pharmacy data returns were received from nine pharmacies in site 1, eight in site 2, and eight in site 3:

In site 1, medicines reconciliation was performed for eight patients; all eight were offered a MUR/discussion.

In site 2, medicines reconciliation was performed for four patients, two of whom were offered MURs or medicines discussions.

In site 3, medicines reconciliation was performed for eight patients, seven of whom were offered a MUR or medicines discussion.

Of the 19 patient survey respondents, 13 reported being offered a review: six from site 1, one from site 2, and six from site 3.