Language issues in the community pharmacy: a perspective from Wales.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to obtain the views of Welsh speakers to explore the role of the Welsh language in community pharmacies in bilingual communities in Wales. METHODS: Two communities with a high proportion of Welsh speakers were purposively identified for the research: one in North Wales and one in West Wales. Stage 1: semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of Welsh speakers to identify key themes. Data collection continued until no new themes emerged. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded manually and analysed thematically. Stage 2: self-complete questionnaire developed based on the interview results. The anonymous, bilingual questionnaire and covering letter, with a postage-paid envelope, were delivered to 500 homes (250 in each community) for completion by the person in the household who visited a pharmacy most often. There was no follow-up mailing due to anonymity. Data were analysed using SPSS version 12. KEY FINDINGS: Results from both interviews (n = 36) and questionnaires (response rate was 52%, 82% of whom were Welsh speakers) found that the majority of Welsh speakers in the study were able to understand English but preferred to use Welsh in the pharmacy. They would find it easier to explain symptoms and would ask more about their medication if they could speak Welsh with the pharmacist. In addition, the study participants would generally feel more at ease with a Welsh-speaking pharmacist and would feel they were getting a better service if they could use their first language. CONCLUSIONS: This study of Welsh speakers indicates that language choice is important for bilingual people who may prefer to use their native, minority language for consultation with health professionals. Further, it is clear that a concordant partnership between patient and pharmacist is less likely where one party is using a language with which they are not confident or comfortable. Pharmacists need to be aware of the linguistic needs and preferences of bilingual clients.

Review of national spontaneous reporting schemes. Strengths and weaknesses.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare the operation of different national spontaneous reporting schemes for adverse drug reactions. DESIGN: Drug safety agencies in 18 countries were contacted by letter to request information about their spontaneous reporting scheme for adverse drug reactions. This information related to the background of the scheme, operational aspects of the scheme and numbers of reports received. RESULTS: Replies were received from 12 countries. Many differences were found between the schemes operating in different countries. Some schemes had been in operation for over 30 years, while others were more recently established. While most schemes rely on voluntary reports, in two countries (France and Spain), reporting is a legal requirement for healthcare professionals. Reports are accepted from doctors, dentists and pharmacists in all of the countries surveyed; however the role of other health professionals and the general public was found to vary. There were also differences in the types of reactions for which reports are requested, and the products covered by the schemes. In some countries (e.g. Denmark) reports of all reactions are sought, while other countries focus on only serious reactions or reactions to newly marketed products. In Australia, there is a separate scheme for drug-induced congenital malformations and Canada, South Africa and the US run separate schemes for reactions to vaccines. However, other countries include these reactions in the general spontaneous reporting schemes. The numbers of reports received by the countries also varies considerably--from a few hundred each year in South Africa to over 20,000 in the US. CONCLUSION: While the schemes all operate on the basic principle of collecting reports of adverse reactions to identify potential hazards, they showed many different approaches to the spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions. Features of one scheme may serve to improve reporting rates for another. In addition, all 12 countries participate in the World Health Organization International Drug Monitoring Programme, thus helping to inform the whole international community of drug safety problems.