[1,8,28] This formative role of simulated-patient methods seeks to improve quality of advice regarding non-prescription medicines.[16] Performance Veliparib feedback provided to pharmacists and their staff after a simulated-patient visit appears to be an important aspect of the simulated-patient method, as it allows for gradual and ongoing fine-tuning of practice behaviour over time.[8,18] However, little is known on how feedback has been delivered to pharmacists and their staff post simulated-patient visits. Although simulated-patient methods as an educational tool have been used in the pharmacy setting for over a decade, systematic reviews of simulated-patient studies

have not investigated feedback provision.[19,23] Furthermore, the review by Mesquita et al. highlighted that no studies found in their review had focused on children’s medicines, which often require unique counselling BGB324 clinical trial information.[19] Therefore there is a need for further knowledge on how feedback is being provided in the pharmacy setting and on how pharmacists and their staff perceive these methods in pharmacy education, as well as exploring how simulated patients can be used to improve the quality use of medicines in children. The aim of this bibliographic review was to explore the use of the

simulated-patient method in the community pharmacy setting involving non-prescription medicines. Previous reviews have mainly focussed on simulated-patient scenarios employed to assess communication many skills of pharmacists and their staff and outcome measures. This review, however, focuses on the purpose of the simulated-patient method, the types of scenarios employed to assess practice behaviour (with particular interest in whether scenarios have involved children’s medicines), as well as whether and how performance feedback

was delivered to pharmacists and their staff, and how these simulated-patient methods were perceived by participants. This review will inform the design of a simulated patient intervention to improve the management of common childhood ailments in community pharmacy. The databases IPA (International Pharmaceutical Abstracts), EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched using the following key words and search strategy: (‘pseudo patient’ OR ‘pseudo customer’ OR ‘standardised patient’ OR ‘standardized patient’ OR ‘shopper patient’ OR ‘mystery shopper’ OR ‘simulated patient’ OR ‘pseudo patron’ OR ‘covert participant’ OR ‘surrogate shopper’ OR ‘disguised shopper’) AND ((‘community’ AND ‘pharmacy’) OR ‘community pharmacy’) in all three databases The search strategy and review protocol were jointly developed by TX and RM. Data collection and extraction was carried out by TX. The search was limited to articles published in the English language, from 1990 to 2010 (Tables 1–3).