Objective: To assess the quantity and nature of prescribed medicines with potential for misuse returned to community pharmacies and general practice surgeries. Setting: Community pharmacies (n = 51, 85% total) and general practice surgeries (n = 42, 69%) within the boundaries of Eastern Birmingham Primary Care Trust, UK. Method: Medicines returned spontaneously by patients to participating sites were collected over eight weeks in May and June 2003. Data were recorded for each medicinal item including: patient sex, recommended International Non-proprietary Name (rINN), strength, form, legal classification, quantity and number of doses per day. Medicines were categorised into BNF therapeutic groups. A ‘medicinal item’ was defined as the total number of dose units of a medicine of the same form, strength and date of issue, returned for a given patient. Key findings: Medicines were returned from 910 patients comprising 3765 medicinal items (2782 (73.9%) prescription-only medicines and 356 (9.5%) controlled drugs). Substantial amounts of unused, prescribed medicines with potential to cause harm or for misuse were returned, with analgesics, psychoactive and antiepileptic agents comprising 19.4% of returned medicinal items. Medicines of note that were returned included paracetamol-containing medicines (16 630 tablets), morphine (56 g), diamorphine (4.3 g), tramadol (2840 tablets and capsules), benzodiazepines (677 tablets) and tricyclic antidepressants (2831 tablets). Conclusions: Substantial quantities of prescribed medicines with potential to cause harm or be misused are routinely present in the community. The management of these unused medicines, and in particular controlled drugs, is currently inadequate and further work is required to identify the legislative and patient-centred processes required to minimise the potential for these medicines to be misused or cause harm.

Self-tests are those where an individual can obtain a result without recourse to a health professional, by getting a result immediately or by sending a sample to a laboratory that returns the result directly. Self-tests can be diagnostic, for disease monitoring, or both. There are currently tests for more than 20 different conditions available to the UK public, and self-testing is marketed as a way of alerting people to serious health problems so they can seek medical help. Almost nothing is known about the extent to which people self-test for cancer or why they do this. Self-tests for cancer could alter perceptions of risk and health behaviour, cause psychological morbidity and have a significant impact on the demand for healthcare. This study aims to gain an understanding of the frequency of self-testing for cancer and characteristics of users. Cross-sectional survey. Adults registered in participating general practices in the West Midlands Region, will be asked to complete a questionnaire that will collect socio-demographic information and basic data regarding previous and potential future use of self-test kits. The only exclusions will be people who the GP feels it would be inappropriate to send a questionnaire, for example because they are unable to give informed consent. Freepost envelopes will be included and non-responders will receive one reminder. Standardised prevalence rates will be estimated. Cancer related self-tests, currently available from pharmacies or over the Internet, include faecal occult blood tests (related to bowel cancer), prostate specific antigen tests (related to prostate cancer), breast cancer kits (self examination guide) and haematuria tests (related to urinary tract cancers). The effect of an increase in self-testing for cancer is unknown but may be considerable: it may affect the delivery of population based screening programmes; empower patients or cause unnecessary anxiety; reduce costs on existing healthcare services or increase demand to investigate patients with positive test results. It is important that more is known about the characteristics of those who are using self-tests if we are to determine the potential impact on health services and the public.

Objective: The study was designed to explore the presence of any relationship between NHS secondary care antibiotic prescribing rates or primary care antibiotic prescribing rates and the levels of deprivation experienced within the referred primary care population. The study also aimed to determine whether the antibiotic prescribing rates for each care sector were correlated.Method: The study was conducted in 12 English hospital trusts of mixed size and case-mix. Antibiotic usage data (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) category J01) for the financial year, ending March 2001/2002 were used to calculate hospital trust prescribing rates (using the defined daily dose/finished consultant episode indicator). Primary care antibiotic prescribing data were obtained from the Prescription Pricing Authority (antibiotic items prescribed per 1000 residents) for the year 2001/2002. Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2000 deprivation data were obtained from the regional public health observatory websites for each of the primary care trusts within the relevant study areas.Key findings: No correlation could be established between the weighted index of multiple deprivation of the treated population and antibiotic prescribing rates at each hospital trust. Primary care antibiotic prescribing rates were not found to correlate with antibiotic prescribing rates in the geographically associated hospital trust. Data from all 12 sites showed that the IMD 2000 measures and primary care prescribing rates were weakly correlated, with higher antibiotic prescribing rates being generally observed in areas of primary care exhibiting the worst levels of deprivationConclusions: The likely explanations for the present findings are that deprivation-related illnesses are principally treated within primary care, whereas hospital antibiotic prescribing principally results from procedures isolated within secondary care or through the additional influence of nosocomial infection. Therefore, medicines management measures geared to controlling antibiotic prescribing in secondary care should not focus upon the levels of deprivation in the referred population, whereas those in primary care should.