Public perceptions and experiences of the minor ailment service in community pharmacy in Scotland

Main Article Content


Personal Satisfaction, Perception, Attitude to Health, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Pharmacies, Community Pharmacy Services, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Health Services Accessibility, Cross-Sectional Studies, Scotland


Background: The Minor Ailment Service (MAS) in Scottish community pharmacy allows eligible people to gain improved access to care by providing free treatment for self-limiting conditions.

Objective: To determine the perceptions and experiences of individuals using MAS and to quantify the potential impact on usage of other healthcare services.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of patients accessing MAS across Scotland during June and July 2018. Questionnaire items included reasons for choosing treatment through MAS, which other services they may have accessed had MAS not been available, experiences of consultation, overall satisfaction, and perceived effectiveness of treatment. Those accessing MAS were given a study pack including an information sheet, pre-piloted questionnaire, and pre-paid return envelope. Participants had the option to consent to an optional one-week follow up questionnaire that focused on perceived effectiveness of treatment after seven days and any further access to healthcare services such as general practice, emergency departments or repeat pharmacy visits. 

Results: There were 1,121 respondents to the initial questionnaire. Most reported ‘convenient Location’ as the main reason for their access to community pharmacy (n=748; 67.1%). If MAS had not been available, 59% (n=655) of participants reported that they would have accessed general practice for treatment of their minor ailment. Experience of consultations was also rated highly with all ten outcome measures scoring ‘Excellent’ overall. Satisfaction was reported positively with most participants reporting full satisfaction with the overall experience (n=960; 87.2%). At one-week follow up, 327 participants responded, over 85% (n=281) did not require further access to care to treat their minor ailment and 99.7% (n=326) said they would use MAS again. 

Conclusions: Positive perceptions and experiences of those using MAS demonstrate a highly regarded service in terms of satisfaction and experience of consultation. The capacity for MAS to impact on the use of higher-cost healthcare services is evidenced through the number of participants who reported these services as a point of access to care should community pharmacy not be available. This national evaluation demonstrates MAS to be a positively experienced service and outlines the factors determining access for treatment of minor ailments.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 714 | pdf Downloads 426


1. Scottish Government. Health and Social Care Delivery Plan. (accessed Feb 4, 2019)
2. Scottish Government. A national clinical strategy for Scotland. (accessed Jan 10, 2019)
3. The National Health Service. Pharmaceutical Services Scotland Regulations 2009. (accessed Jan 10, 2019).
4. Scottish Government. The 2018 General Medical Services contract in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2017.
5. Scottish Government. Achieving Excellence in Pharmaceutical Care: A Strategy for Scotland. (accessed Dec 20, 2018).
6. Fielding S, Porteous T, Ferguson J, et al. Estimating the burden of minor ailment consultations in general practices and emergency departments through retrospective review of routine data in North East Scotland. Fam Pract. 2015;32(2):165-172.
7. Paudyal V, Cunningham S, Gibson Smith K, MacLure K, Ryan C, Cordina M. Methodological considerations in clinical outcomes assessment of pharmacy-based minor ailments management: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205087.
8. Scottish Health Council. Gathering patient views on community pharmacy services. (accessed Nov 1, 2018).
9. Maskrey M, Johnson CF, Cormack J, Ryan M, Macdonald H. Releasing GP capacity with pharmacy prescribing support and New Ways of Working: a prospective observational cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68(675):e735-e742.
10. Saramunee K, Krska J, Mackridge A, Richards J, Suttajit S, Phillips-Howard P. How to enhance public health service utilization in community pharmacy?: general public and health providers' perspectives. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014;10(2):272-284.
11. Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380(9836):37-43.
12. Agomo CO, Portlock J, Ogunleye J. Barriers in the public health role of community pharmacists: a qualitative study. J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2017;8(4):261-267.
13. Watson MC, Silver K, Watkins R. How does the public conceptualise the quality of care and its measurement in community pharmacies in the UK: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e027198.
14. Paudyal V, Watson MC, Sach T, et al. Are pharmacy-based minor ailment schemes a substitute for other service providers? A systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(612):e472-e481.
15. Dineen-Griffin S, Benrimoj SI, Rogers K, Williams KA, Garcia-Cardenas V. Cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and humanistic impact of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(11):921-931.
16. Dineen-Griffin S, Vargas C, Williams KA, Benrimoj SI, Garcia-Cardenas V. Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020;18:24.
17. Rafferty E, Yaghoubi M, Taylor J, Farag M. Costs and savings associated with a pharmacists prescribing for minor ailments program in Saskatchewan. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2017;15:3.
18. McCarthy A, O’Nolan G, Long J. Minor Ailments Schemes: An Overview of Experience up to 2015. Dublin: Health Research Board; 2016.
19. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Pharmacy Action Plan: 2016 to 2020. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2016.
20. Vohra S. A community pharmacy minor ailment scheme: effective, rapid and convenient. Pharm J. 2006;276:754-756.
21. Watson MC, Ferguson J, Barton GR, et al. A cohort study of influences, health outcomes and costs of patients' health-seeking behaviour for minor ailments from primary and emergency care settings. BMJ Open. 2015;5(2):e006261.
22. Charters E. The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research. An introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Educ. 2003;12(2):68-82.
23. Scottish Government 2010. Scottish IMD 2009 data. (accessed Jan 10, 2019).
24. Mercer SW, Maxwell M, Heaney D, Watt GC. The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. Fam Pract. 2004;21(6):699-705.
25. Watson M, Holland R, Ferguson J, Porteous T, Sach T, Cleland J. Community pharmacy management of minor illness (the MINA Study). London: Pharmacy Research UK; 2014.
26. Community Pharmacy Scotland 2020. accessed Sep 3, 2020).

Most read articles by the same author(s)