Background
Community pharmacists, GPs, practice and community nurses in Angus, Tayside have been offered training in medication reviews.1,2,3 A campaign encouraging patients to attend for review from these professionals was piloted in four medical practices and six community pharmacies where training uptake had been high. The campaign comprised posters, for display in practices and pharmacies, and leaflets, for distribution to patients, used over two months (September to November 2005). The aims of this study were to ascertain the uptake of the campaign by practices and pharmacies and to determine patients' preferences for reviews conducted by these professions.

Method
Tayside Ethics committee advised approval was unnecessary. A telephone survey was conducted to determine campaign participation. A self-completion questionnaire was devised for patients receiving reviews and issued to practices and pharmacies. The relevant professional was asked to offer this to patients after review, with a freepost envelope addressed to an independent researcher ensuring anonymity and confidentiality.

Results
All pharmacies and practices initially agreed to support the campaign. All four practices and three pharmacies used leaflets and posters, two pharmacies used neither and one only leaflets. Three pharmacies provided reviews and two practices referred patients to community pharmacists for review. Practices were unable to provide the number of nurse and GP reviews carried out. One practice did not issue any questionnaires to patients.
Thirty-five completed questionnaires were received from patients; the number distributed could not be ascertained. Fifteen (43%) had seen a poster and 15 received a leaflet, mostly from pharmacies; seventeen (49%) had neither. One patient indicated that they or a carer had initiated the review whereas 33 (94%) reviews had been suggested by a health professional (1missing answer). Nineteen (56%) had received a review by a nurse, 15 (43%) by a pharmacist and one (3%) by a GP. Thirty-two (91%) would be happy to have a review each year and many gave favourable comments: 'I am very pleased to have had the opportunity of having a medication review and found it most useful....'(P30)
Fifteen (43%) indicated no preference for the review provider, whilst eight (23%) preferred a pharmacist, seven (20%) a nurse and three (9%) a GP (2 missing answers). All those reviewed by a nurse selected nurse or no preference; 'Nurse is perfectly capable and qualified to undertake review'. (P19) Of the 15 reviewed by a pharmacist, eight (53%) expressed a pharmacist preference, 'I feel the pharmacist is more highly qualified to give advice regarding medication...'P30. However, one preferred a GP review 'It was the doctor who prescribed them in the first place' P24 with the remainder showing no preference.

Discussion
Despite initial agreement, some pharmacies and practices did not use campaign materials, provide reviews or distribute questionnaires. While half the patients saw a poster and/or received a leaflet, the campaign did not attract them to initiate review and concerns that it would prompt large number of patients to do so proved unfounded. Patients were supportive of both pharmacist and nurse reviews, with many expressing no preference for the reviewer's profession.