Transparent about the science. Equally clear about the limits.
Our approach is grounded in recognised medicines-optimisation guidance and professional pharmacy standards. Evidence for those methods is not presented as proof that this particular product improves outcomes.
The foundations behind a responsible review.
Primary guidance and peer-reviewed frameworks are linked directly so clinicians, patients and commissioners can inspect the basis for themselves.
Medicines optimisation
NICE NG5 covers medication review, medicines reconciliation, communication at transfers of care and decision support for people taking medicines.
NICE guideline NG5Structured medication review
NHS England describes SMRs as comprehensive, evidence-based reviews shaped by benefits, risks, alternatives, individual circumstances and shared decisions.
NHS England SMR guidancePerson-centred pharmacy care
GPhC standards place person-centred care, communication, partnership, confidentiality and professional judgement at the centre of pharmacy practice.
GPhC standards for pharmacy professionalsExplicit prescribing criteria
STOPP/START provides a peer-reviewed framework for recognising potentially inappropriate prescribing and omissions in older people.
STOPP/START criteria, version 3Benefits, harms and what matters
NICE recommends collaborative decisions that combine clinical evidence with a person’s preferences, values and circumstances.
NICE guideline NG197Suspected adverse reactions
Patients and professionals can report suspected medicine reactions through the MHRA Yellow Card scheme; a report is a safety signal, not proof of causation.
MHRA Yellow Card guidanceClinical decision support should make professional judgement more consistent—not make the professional invisible.That principle shapes both the workflow and the language of every patient-facing output.
From information to a pharmacist-signed report.
Structured intake
The review begins with the medicines, conditions, allergies, monitoring, treatment history and goals the person provides.
Systematic checks
Recognised safety concepts and deterministic rules help surface combinations, monitoring gaps and context that deserve attention.
Pharmacist judgement
A registered pharmacist checks relevance, priority, uncertainty and wording. Automated findings are not released directly.
Bounded output
The signed report separates reassurance, routine discussion and urgent action, and points medicine changes back to the prescriber.
What we know, what we infer and what we are still testing.
Established externally
The value of person-centred medication review, reconciliation, shared decision-making and pharmacist professional standards is supported by recognised guidance.
Designed and governed here
Our intake, clinical rules, prioritisation, audit trail and mandatory pharmacist release gate implement that approach. This is product design—not independent outcome evidence.
Still to be demonstrated
Comparative validation against pharmacists and expert consensus, followed by real-world service evaluation. We will distinguish methodology, results and limitations when published.
Reviewing the service for an NHS organisation?
Explore the commissioning proposition, governance position and enquiry route for PCNs, ICBs and provider organisations.