Advertisement

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 67, Issue 10, pp 1035–1044 | Cite as

Use of ATC to describe duplicate medications in primary care prescriptions

  • Chiao Mei Lim
  • Faridah Aryani Md Yusof
  • Sharmini Selvarajah
  • Teck Onn Lim
Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to demonstrate the suitability of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) to describe duplicate drugs and duplicate drug classes in prescription data and describe the pattern of duplicates from public and private primary care clinics of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Methods

We analyzed prescription data year 2005 from all 14 public clinics in Kuala Lumpur with 12,157 prescriptions, and a sample of 188 private clinics with 25,612 prescriptions. As ATC Level 5 code represents the molecule and Level 4 represents the pharmacological subgroup, we used repetitions of codes in the same prescription to describe duplicate drugs or duplicate drug classes and compared them between the public and private clinics.

Results

At Level 4 ATC, prescriptions with duplicates drug classes were 1.46% of all prescriptions in private and 0.04% in public clinics. At Level 5 ATC, prescriptions with duplicate drugs were 1.81% for private and 0.95% for public clinics. In private clinics at Level 5, 73.3% of prescriptions with duplicates involved systemic combination drugs; at Level 4, 40.3% involved systemic combination drugs. In the public sector at Level 5, 95.7% of prescriptions with duplicates involved topical products.

Conclusions

Repetitions of the same ATC codes were mostly useful to describe duplicate medications; however, we recommend avoid using ATC codes for tropical products for this purpose due to ambiguity. Combination products were often involved in duplicate prescribing; redesign of these products might improve prescribing quality. Duplicates occurred more often in private clinics than public clinics in Malaysia

Keywords

Duplicate prescribing Duplicate drugs ATC Combination drugs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Director General of Health for permission to publish findings of this study and thank all doctors and pharmacists who participated in the NMUS.

Conflict of interest

This research was conducted by data from National Medicines Use Survey (NMUS). NMUS was sponsored by a grant from Ministry of Health (MRG Grant Number 00311). The authors of this paper work in the Ministry of Health, Malaysia. Pharmaceutical Services Division manages pharmacists and the drug formulary of Ministry of Health.

References

  1. 1.
    Dean B, Barber N, Schachter (2000) What is a prescribing error? Qual Health Care 9:232–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holloway K, Green T (eds) (2003) Drugs and Therapeutics Committee: A practical guide, World Health Organization, pp 81–82Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beers MH, Ouslander JG, Rollingher I, Reuben DB, Brooks J, Beck JC (1991) Explicit criteria for determining inappropriate medication use in nursing home residents. Arch Intern Med 151:1825–1832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Uttech KM, Lewis IK, Cohen HJ, Feussner JR (1992) A method for assessing drug therapy appropriateness. J Clin Epidemiol 45:1045–1051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallagher P, O'Mahony D (2008) STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions): application to acutely ill elderly patients and comparison with Beers' criteria. Age Ageing 37:673–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Leeuwen RW, Swart EL, Boom FA, Schuitenmaker MS, Hugtenburg JG (2010) Potential drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions among ambulatory cancer patients: a prevalence study using an advanced screening method. BMC Cancer 13(10):679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Sijs H, Mulder A, van Gelder T, Aarts J, Berg M, Vulto A (2009) Drug safety alert generation and overriding in a large Dutch university medical centre. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 18:941–947PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fahey T, Teeling M, Teljeur C, Feely J, Bennett K (2010) Potentially inappropriate prescribing and cost outcomes for older people: a national population study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 69:543–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donyai P, O'Grady K, Jacklin A, Barber N, Franklin BD (2008) The effects of electronic prescribing on the quality of prescribing. Br J Clin Pharmacol 65:230–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lesar TS, Briceland L, Stein DS (1997) Factors related to errors in medication prescribing. JAMA 277:312–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vinks TH, de Koning FH, de Lange TM, Egberts TC (2006) Identification of potential drug-related problems in the elderly: the role of the community pharmacist. Pharm World Sci 28:33–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bobb A, Gleason K, Husch M, Feinglass J, Yarnold PR, Noskin GA (2004) The epidemiology of prescribing errors: the potential impact of computerized prescriber order entry. Arch Intern Med 164:785–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shah NR, Seger AC, Seger DL, Fiskio JM, Kuperman GJ, Blumenfeld B, Recklet EG, Bates DW, Gandhi TK (2006) Improving acceptance of computerized prescribing alerts in ambulatory care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13:5–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (2006) Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment 2007, Oslo.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Smet PAGM (1993) New Applications of the ATC/DDD methodology in the Netherlands Part 1. ATC/DDD principles and computerized medication surveillance. Int Pharm J 7:196–199Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klaukka T (2009) The Finnish database on drug utilization.Norwegian. J Epidemiol 11:19–22Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wettermark B, Hammar N, Fored CM, Leimanis A, Otterblad Olausson P, Bergman U, Persson I, Sundström A, Westerholm B, Rosén M (2007) The new Swedish Prescribed Drug Register–opportunities for pharmacoepidemiological research and experience from the first six months. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 16:726–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Furu K (2009) Establishment of the nationwide Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD)–new opportunities for research in pharmacoepidemiology in Norway. Nor Epidemiol 18:129–136Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sameerah SAR, Sarojini S. (ed) (2007) Malaysian Statistics on Medicine 2005. Ministry of Health Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, pp xi- xviGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sawyer D, Aziz KJ, Backinger CL et al. (1996) Do it by Design: an introduction to human factors in medical devices, US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm095061.pdf
  21. 21.
    Helfland WH (1979) Worldwide patterns of combination drug usage. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 16:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Clapp MD, Burdick E, Demonaco HJ, Erickson JI, Bates DW (1999) Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit. JAMA 282:267–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiao Mei Lim
    • 1
  • Faridah Aryani Md Yusof
    • 2
  • Sharmini Selvarajah
    • 1
  • Teck Onn Lim
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical Research CentreMinistry of Health MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Pharmaceutical Services DivisionMinistry of Health MalaysiaPetaling JayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations