Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 181–188 | Cite as

Validation of an instrument for the documentation of clinical pharmacists’ interventions

  • Benoît Allenet
  • Pierrick Bedouch
  • François-Xavier Rose
  • Laurence Escofier
  • Renaud Roubille
  • Bruno Charpiat
  • Michel Juste
  • Ornella Conort
Original Paper

Abstract

Objective

To validate an instrument for documentation of clinical pharmacy interventions in French speaking hospitals in France and outside of France.

Method

A panel of 12 French speaking clinical pharmacists (six from France; six from French speaking countries) was asked to analyse a set of 60 pharmacist’s interventions on drug prescription. They used a form including (1) the identification of the drug related problems (DRPs) (10 items), (2) the pharmacist’s intervention (7 items). We assessed the level of agreement between the 12 pharmacists on the test DRPs and on the interventions.

Main outcome measures

Kappa coefficient of concordance was used to assess the level of agreement between experts for DRPs and interventions. We also assessed the userfriendliness of the instrument using Likert scales.

Results

The level of concordance observed in the validation was 0.76 for DRPs and 0.89 for the type of intervention. Eleven experts out of 12 were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” and one “not satisfied” with the tool. Ten out of the 12 experts were ready to use it in daily practise.

Conclusion

The present instrument proposed by the French Society of Clinical Pharmacy (SFPC) is the first coding system for pharmacist’s interventions with a French interface. The validation process using a standard statistical methodology helps support the external validity of our tool. The level of concordance between users can be considered as satisfactory, allowing the use of the tool in daily clinical pharmacy practise. To enhance the diffusion of the instrument and of the general process of routine documentation of interventions, a spreadsheet is provided on the French Society of Clinical Pharmacy website.

Keywords

Clinical pharmacist Clinical pharmacy Documentation France Intervention 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bond CA, Raehl CL, Franke T. Clinical pharmacy services, pharmacy staffing and the total cost of care in United States hospitals. Pharmacotherapy 2000;20:609–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schumock GT, Butler MG, Meek PD, Vermeulen LC, Arondekar BV, Beuman JL. Evidence of the economic benefit of clinical pharmacy services: 1996–2000. Pharmacotherapy 2003;23:113–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Child C, Cantrill J, Cooke J. The effectiveness of hospital pharmacy in the UK: methodology for finding the evidence. Pharm World Sci 2004;26:44–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bright JM, Tenni PC. The clinical services documentation (CSD) system for documenting clinical pharmacists’ services. Aust J Hosp Pharm 2000;30:10–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strand LM, Morley PC, Cipolle RJ, Ramsey, Lamsam GD. Drug-related problems: their structure and function. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1990;24:1093–97.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mutnick AH, Sterba KJ, Peroutka JA, Sloan NE, Beltz EA, Sorenson MK. Cost savings and avoidance from clinical␣interventions. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 1997; 54:392–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weidle P, Bradley L, Gallina J, Mullins CD, Thorn D, Seigel LP. Pharmaceutical care intervention documentation program and related cost savings at a university hospital. Hosp Pharm 1999;34:43–52.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conort O, Bedouch P, Juste M, Augereau L, Charpiat B, Roubille R, Allenet B. Validation of an instrument for the codification of clinical pharmacy interventions. J Pharm Clin 2004;23:141–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kramer HC, Bloch DA. Kappa coefficients in epidemiology: an appraisal of a reappraisal. J Clin epidemiol 1988;41:959–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schaeffer M. Discussing basic principles for coding system of drug-related problems: the case of PI-Doc®. Pharm World Sci 2002;24:120–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. DRP-classification V5.0. http://www.pcne.org/dokumenter/PCNE%20classification%20V5.00.pdf (24 feb. 2006).
  12. 12.
    Van Mil JWF, Westerlund LO, Hersberger KE, Schaefer M. Drug-related problem classification system. Ann Pharmacother 2004;38: 859–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    French Agency for health products’ medical safety. Thesaurus of drug–drug interactions. http://www.agmed.sante.gouv.fr/htm/10/iam/triam.pdf (24 feb. 2006).
  14. 14.
    French Society of Clinical Pharmacy. Website. http://www.adiph.org/sfpc/actepharmaceutique.html (24 feb. 2006).

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benoît Allenet
    • 1
    • 8
  • Pierrick Bedouch
    • 1
  • François-Xavier Rose
    • 2
  • Laurence Escofier
    • 3
  • Renaud Roubille
    • 4
  • Bruno Charpiat
    • 5
  • Michel Juste
    • 6
  • Ornella Conort
    • 7
  1. 1.ThEMAS TIMC-IMAG UMR CNRS5525 UJF Grenoble and Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire (CHU) de GrenobleGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Hôtel-DieuRennesFrance
  3. 3.Centre Hospitalier du Nord MayenneMayenneFrance
  4. 4.Centre Hospitalier Lucien HusselVienneFrance
  5. 5.Hôpital de la Croix-RousseHospices Civils de LyonLyonFrance
  6. 6.Centre Hospitalier Auban-MoëtEpernayFrance
  7. 7.Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de ParisParisFrance
  8. 8.Pharmacie MoidieuCHU de GrenobleGrenoble cedex 09France

Personalised recommendations