Prioritising drug and therapeutics committee (DTC) decisions: a national survey
- 175 Downloads
A national survey was conducted to explore stakeholder opinions about: (1) the domains of activity and criteria used to determine “important” decisions; (2) the “importance” of Drug and Therapeutics Committee (DTC) decisions as an appropriate approach for prioritising implementation and actions and (3) how DTC decisions could be prioritised for action.
This is a study of DTCs conducted in the Australian health care setting.
A semi-structured questionnaire was sent to Directors of Pharmacies or Chief Pharmacists in Australian hospitals. Questionnaires could be returned by email or by fax. Two weeks after initial mail-out, non-responders were followed-up. Responses were collated and analysed using descriptive statistics. Free-text responses were collated. QSR NVivo© was used as a data management tool.
The response rate was 61%. All respondents indicated that “patient safety” was a domain of importance for a decision. Other domains of important DTC decisions include: “ensuring the practice of evidence based medicine within their institution” (94%), “cost” (93%), “ensure practice according to legislative requirements” (87%). Most respondents agreed that some DTC decisions were more important than others. Given constraints on time and resources, the majority agreed that DTC decisions should be prioritised for implementation, although most had no suggestions about how this could be done. Some suggested that the domains of importance could be the basis for priority assignment.
Currently DTC decisions and policies are implemented in an ad hoc manner. As a result implementation may be incomplete and ineffective, and may pose a risk of serious consequences in patient care. This study identifies the domains or criteria of DTC decisions so that DTCs may allocate scarce resources to the systematic implementation of important decisions.
KeywordsAustralia Drug and therapeutics committees (DTCs) Policy implementation Priority assignment Quality use of medicines
- 1.Miller B, Plumridge R. Drug and therapeutics committees in Australian hospitals: an assessment of effectiveness. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1983; 13(2):61–4.Google Scholar
- 3.Holloway K, Green T. Drug and therapeutics committees: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organisation. 2003 [Available from: mednet2.who.int/tbs/rational/s4882e.pdf].Google Scholar
- 4.Heemink I, Molero-Montes M, Tabit E, et al. Review of the functioning of P&T committees in Boston-area hospitals—Part 1. NJ: Quadrant Healthcom Inc.; 1999.Google Scholar
- 6.Yapp P, Steere N. The role and impact of the drug and therapeutics committee on drug utilisation in hospital. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1980; 10(4):152–3.Google Scholar
- 7.American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. ASHP statement on the pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Am J Hosp Pharm 1978; 35:813–4.Google Scholar
- 8.Schein E. Organizational culture and leadership. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1997. ISBN: 0787903620.Google Scholar
- 10.Wade W, Spruill WJ, Taylor AT, et al. The expanding role of pharmacy and therapeutics committees—The 1990s and beyond. Phamacoecon 1996; 10(2):123–6.Google Scholar
- 12.Tan E, Day R, Brien J. Stakeholder opinions on the implementation of drug and therapeutics committee decisions. J Pharm Pract Res 2004; 34:178–82.Google Scholar
- 13.Tan E, Day R, Brien J. Perspectives on drug and therapeutics committee (DTC) policy implementation. Res Soc Adm Pharm 2005; 1:526–45.Google Scholar
- 14.Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (2004) Directory of hospital pharmacy and pharmaceutical organisations. The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia, SHPA, Australia.Google Scholar
- 15.Tenni P, Hughes J. National survey of clinical pharmacy services. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1996; 26(4):416–27.Google Scholar
- 17.The University of York. Effective health care: getting evidence into practice. London: The Royal Society of Medicine Press, 1999. p. 1–16.Google Scholar
- 19.Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. National medicines policy 2000. Canberra: Publications Production Unit (Public Affairs, Parliamentary and Access Branch); 1999.Google Scholar
- 20.Roughead E, Semple S. Second national report on patient safety: improving medication safety. Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Healthcare; 2002.Google Scholar
- 21.Weekes L. Organisational structures to promote quality use of medicines, in school of community medicine, faculty of medicine. PhD thesis, Sydney: University of New South Wales; 2000. p. 354.Google Scholar