Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adaptation and validation of PCNE drug-related problem classification v6.2 in French-speaking Belgian community pharmacies

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Many tools exist to document drug-related problems (DRP), such as the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) classification. However, none have been adapted and published for French-speaking Belgian community pharmacies. Settings French-speaking Belgian Community pharmacies. Objective The objective was to translate and adapt the PCNE V6.2 classification to the Belgian pharmacy practice and legal setting and to assess the content validity, daily use and inter-rater reliability of this classification. Main Outcome Measure Validation of the French-language adapted PCNE v6.2 classification in Belgium. Method The first step translated and adapted the PCNE V6.2 classification to the Belgian setting. Thereafter academic and community pharmacists evaluated the content validity, which involved six criteria and concerned the instruction manual (clarity, helpfulness) and the registration form (representativeness, logical design, completeness and uniqueness). The next step was the DRP collection, using the PCNE tool daily. Compliance with the instructions and the time needed to solve a DRP were evaluated. Finally, the inter-rater reliability was evaluated by comparing DRP codings done by pharmacist volunteers. Results The classification was translated into French and adapted by adding 16 items. The classification showed a high content validity for the academics and the community pharmacists. A total of 109 DRP forms were coded, with an average resolution time of 5 min. Regarding the inter-rater reliability, 74 tool items out of the set of 83 showed high consistency in coding. Conclusion This study showed that the tool adaptation to a French-speaking Belgian context was reliable and has adequate validity for daily use.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Costa FA, Scullin C, Al-Taani G, Hawwa AF, Anderson C, Bezverhni Z, et al. Provision of pharmaceutical care by community pharmacists across Europe: is it developing and spreading? J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:1336–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Loi modifiant l’Arrêté Royal No 78 du 10 Novembre 1967 relatif à l’exercice des professions des soins de santé (2006).

  3. Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(3):533–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. PCNE. Classification for Drug related problems 2003–2010. http://www.pcne.org/upload/files/11_PCNE_classification_V6-2.pdf. Accessed Nov 2009.

  5. Bjorkman IK, Sanner MA, Bernsten CB. Comparing 4 classification systems for drug-related problems: processes and functions. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2008;4(4):320–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schaefer M. Discussing basic principles for a coding system of drug-related problems: the case of PI-Doc. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24(4):120–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Westerlund L, Almarsdo A, Melander A. Drug related problems and pharmacy interventions in community practice. Int J Pharm Pract. 1999;7:40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Mil JW. Developing a DRP classification: a never ending story. PCNE Symposium, Geneva, 2009. https://www.pcne.org/upload/ws2009/DRP%20Vanmil%20Pres.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2018.

  9. Van Mil JW, Westerlund LO, Hersberger KE, Schaefer MA. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(5):859–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. PCNE. Looking for the different versions of the PCNE-DRP classification? http://www.pcne.org/working-groups/2/drug-related-problem-classification. Accessed 1 Dec 2018.

  11. Claeys C, Neve J, Tulkens PM, Spinewine A. Content validity and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to characterize unintentional medication discrepancies. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(7):577–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20(3):269–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Allenet B, Bedouch P, Rose FX, Escofier L, Roubille R, Charpiat B, et al. Validation of an instrument for the documentation of clinical pharmacists’ interventions. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28(4):181–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Forrey RA, Pedersen CA, Schneider PJ. Interrater agreement with a standard scheme for classifying medication errors. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2007;64(2):175–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maes KA, Studer H, Berger J, Hersberger KE, Lampert ML. Documentation of pharmaceutical care: validation of an intervention oriented classification system. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:1425–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hammerlein A, Griese N, Schulz M. Survey of drug-related problems identified by community pharmacies. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(11):1825–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nivya K, Sri Sai Kiran V, Ragoo N, Jayaprakash B, Sonal Sekhar M. Systemic review on drug related hospital admissions—a pubmed based search. Saudi Pharm J SPJ Off Publ Saudi Pharm Soc. 2015;23(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Westerlund T, Gelin U, Pettersson E, Skarlund F, Wagstrom K, Ringbom C. A retrospective analysis of drug-related problems documented in a national database. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(2):202–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Caleo S, Benrimoj S, Collins D, Lauchlan R, Stewart K. Clinical evaluation of community pharmacists’ interventions. Int J Pharm Pract. 1996;4:221–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lampert ML, Kraehenbuehl S, Hug BL. Drug-related problems: evaluation of a classification system in the daily practice of a Swiss University Hospital. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(6):768–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Silva C, Ramalho C, Luz I, Monteiro J, Fresco P. Drug-related problems in institutionalized, polymedicated elderly patients: opportunities for pharmacist intervention. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37(2):327–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Titley-Lake C, Barber N. Drug related problems in the elders of the British Virgin Islands. Int J Pharm Pract. 2000;8:53–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the pharmacists that participated in this study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Boulevard du Triomphe, CP 207, Access 2, Campus de la Plaine, Building BC, Local 1B7 101, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    M. Koubaity, M. Lelubre, G. Sansterre, K. Amighi & C. De Vriese

Authors
  1. M. Koubaity
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Lelubre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Sansterre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Amighi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. De Vriese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Koubaity.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 77 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koubaity, M., Lelubre, M., Sansterre, G. et al. Adaptation and validation of PCNE drug-related problem classification v6.2 in French-speaking Belgian community pharmacies. Int J Clin Pharm 41, 244–250 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-018-0773-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-018-0773-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation