Skip to main content
Log in

Prescribing at the Interface Between Primary and Secondary Care in the UK

Towards Joint Formularies?

  • Leading Article
  • Integrating Primary and Secondary Care Prescribing
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current divisions in managing prescribing between primary and secondary care in the UK arise from separate budgetary arrangements. These divisions are neither sensible, organisationally efficient nor cost effective. Transition of patients across the interface of primary and secondary care has always been problematic, hindered by poor communication and coordination. Joint formularies would improve overall care and raise awareness of the need to consider overall costs within a unified National Health Service (NHS). There are, however, few examples of successful working of a joint formulary in the UK. It is likely that harmonisation of drug use in hospitals and in primary care will come about because of contracting and commissioning, and that it will largely be led by primary care, through the developing primary care groups (PCGs). Local decisions around availability and use of drug therapies will increasingly be superseded by the national decisions emanating from the newly formed National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pearce M, Begg E. A review of limited lists and formularies: are they cost effective? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 191–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Voss S, Hardy N, Olds T, et al. The use of practice formularies by general practitioners in Southampton and South West Hampshire. Pharma J 1997; 258: 38–40

    Google Scholar 

  3. McGavock H, Wilson Davies K, McGavock S. Formulary revision: eliciting the views of users. Br J Gen Pract 1996; 46: 419–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Joshi M, Williams A, Petrie J. Hospital formularies in 1993: where, why and how? Pharm J 1994; 253: 63–5

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pryce AJ, Heatlie HF, Chapman SR. Buccaling under the pressure: influence of secondary care establishments on the prescribing of glyceryl trinitrate buccal tablets in primary care. BMJ 1996; 313: 1621–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Audit Commission. A prescription for improvement. London: HMSO, 1994

  7. Grant GB, Gregory GA, Zwanenberg TD. Development of a limited formulary for general practice. Lancet 1985; I: 1030–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grant GB, Gregory DA, Edwards C. A basic formulary for general practice: Oxford Medical Publications Practical guides for general practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  9. Essex B. Practice formularies: towards more rational prescribing [editorial]. BMJ 1989; 298: 1052

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Green P. The general practice formulary: its role in rational therapeutics. J R Coll Gen Pract 1985; 35: 570–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Needham A, Brown M, Freeborn S. Introduction and audit of a general practice antibiotic formulary. J R Coll Gen Pract 1988; 38 (309): 166–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Beardon P, Brown SV, Mowat DA, et al. Introducing a drug formulary to general practice: effects on practice prescribing costs. J R Coll Gen Pract 1987: 37 (300): 305–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hill-Smith I. Sharing resources to create a district drug formulary: a countywide controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 1996: 46: 271–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dowell JS, Snadden D, Dunbar JA. Changing to generic formulary: how one fundholding practice reduced prescribing costs. BMJ 1995; 310: 505–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Torgerson DJ, Maynard A. Fundholding and prescribing: prescribing practice may have been inefficient [letter]. BMJ 1995; 311: 128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Royal College of General Practitioners. Resource pack: how to produce a practice formulary. London: Royal College of General Practitioners, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  17. Onion C, Dutton C, Walley T, et al. Local clinical guidelines: description and evaluation of a participative method for their development and implementation. Fam Pract 1996; 13: 28–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilkie P, Sibbald B, Raftery J, et al. Prescribing at the hospital-general practice interface. I: hospital outpatient dispensing policies in England. BMJ 1992; 304 (6818): 29–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sibbald B, Wilkie P, Raftery J, et al. Prescribing at the hospital-general practice interface. II: impact of hospital outpatient dispensing policies in England on general practitioners and hospital consultants. BMJ 1992; 304: 31–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Crump BJ, Panton R, Drummond MF, et al. Transferring the costs of expensive treatments from secondary to primary care. BMJ 1995; 310: 509–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. National Health Service Management Executive. Responsibility for prescribing between hospitals and GPs. London: National Health Service Management Executive, 1991. Report no.: EL (91)127

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hampson JP, Roberts RI, Morgan DA. Shared care: a review of the literature. Fam Pract 1996; 13: 264–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Evans D. A stakeholder analysis of developments at the primary and secondary care interface. Br J Gen Pract 1996; 46: 675–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Garvey G, Jappy B, Stewart D, et al. Grampian Health Board’s joint drug formulary. BMJ 1990; 301: 851–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Grampian formulary. Aberdeen: Drug Monitoring Unit, Aberdeen Infirmary, 1995

  26. Lothian formulary. 3rd ed. Ediburgh: Lothian Liaison Committee, Ladywell Medical Centre, 1992

  27. Stewart D, Milne K, Krska J, et al. Adherence to the Grampian joint drug formulary in general practice. J Clin Pharm Ther 1996; 21: 79–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. NHS in Scotland Management Executive. Management of the Drug Bill. Edinburgh: The Scottish Office, 1993. Report no.: MEL(1993)12

    Google Scholar 

  29. General Medical Services Committee. Defining core services in general practice–reclaiming professional control. London: British Medical Association, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jones R, Rawlins M. Prescribing at the interface between hospitals and general practitioners. BMJ 1992; 304: 4–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hunter D, Fairfield G. Disease management. BMJ 1997; 315: 50–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. National Health Service (NHS) Executive. Commercial approaches to the NHS regarding disease management packages. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1994. Report no.: EL (94)94

    Google Scholar 

  33. National Health Service (NHS) Executive. Purchasing and prescribing. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1994. Report no.: EL (94)72

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wakeman A, Leach R. Joint prescribing committees: characteristics, progress and effectiveness. Health Trends 1997; 29: 52–4

    Google Scholar 

  35. Young M, Colwill S, Spiby J. Transferring the costs of expensive treatments: guidelines may clarify responsibility for prescribing [letter]. BMJ 1995; 310: 1335

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Effective Health Care Bulletin, December 1994, no. 8: implementing clinical practice guidelines. Leeds: University of Leeds, 1994. (Now from York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination)

  37. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, et al. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ 1998; 317: 465–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Grol R. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ 1997; 315: 418–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Purves I, Nestor G, Williams K. Testing of PRODIGY continues. BMJ 1998; 316 (7133): 776–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. British National Formulary No. 36. London: BMJ Books, 1998

  41. Reilly A, Taylor RJ, Webster J. General practitioners’ attitudes towards the limited list. J R Coll Gen Pract 1986; 36: 151–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Taylor RJ, Bond CM. Limited list: limited effects? BMJ 1985; 291: 518–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Bateman, DN. The selected list. BMJ 1993; 306: 1141–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. House of Commons Select Committee. Priority setting in the NHS: the NHS drugs budget. Vol 1: report, together with an appendix and the minutes of the committee. London: HMSO, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  45. Walley T. A UK national prescribing list? Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 191–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Department of Health. The New NHS. London: HMSO, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  47. NHS Executive. A first class service: quality in the new NHS. London: HMSO, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  48. Brooks A. Viagra is licensed in Europe but rationed in Britain. BMJ 1998; 317: 765

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Walley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duerden, M., Walley, T. Prescribing at the Interface Between Primary and Secondary Care in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 15, 435–443 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915050-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915050-00002

Keywords

Navigation