Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 647–654 | Cite as

Drug therapy problems found in ambulatory patient populations in Minnesota and South Australia

  • Deepa RaoEmail author
  • Andrew Gilbert
  • Linda M. Strand
  • Robert J. Cipolle
Research Article

Abstract

Objective

To compare drug therapy problems identified by pharmacists in two patient samples, the Minnesota Sample and the South Australian Sample.

Methods

Two patient samples were selected for this comparison. Both sets of patients received pharmaceutical care services from pharmaceutical care practitioners between March 1999 and February 2000. The two databases were then compared for common drug therapy problems.

Main outcome measure

Comparison of drug therapy problems in the two samples.

Results

Both patient samples included patients who were 40 years of age or older. The Minnesota Sample included 1,598 individual patients, of whom 70% experienced one or more drug therapy problems at some time during their care. The South Australian Sample included a total of 982 patients of whom 90% experienced one or more drug therapy problems at some time during their care. Conditions common to both patient samples include hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, ischemic heart disease, and osteoporosis. Frequently occurring drug therapy problems in the Minnesota Sample included the need for additional drug therapy, dosage too low and non-compliance and in the South Australian Sample included non-compliance, additional drug therapy and ineffective drug therapy. Frequent drug therapy problems associated with medical conditions in the Minnesota Sample included addition of new therapies for conditions such as arthritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and allergic rhinitis, while for the South Australian Sample included compliance issues with conditions such as asthma, diabetes mellitus, angina and digestive disorders. Frequent drug therapy problems with associated drug classes in the Minnesota Sample included additional therapy for classes such as salicylates and calcium supplements, while in the South Australian Sample included the need for therapy for pneumococcal vaccines, salicylates, calcium supplements and tetanus vaccines.

Conclusion

These data demonstrate that this age group has significant drug therapy problems and therefore emphasize the need for pharmaceutical care services in this population. The provision of pharmaceutical care by experienced practitioners can result in improved recognition of the full range of drug therapy problems confronting patients. Analyses such as those presented here provide information to better focus the training of practitioners based on the most frequently encountered health problems and the nature of common drug therapy problems in the community setting.

Keywords

Australia Drug-related problems Drug therapy problems Home medicines review Medication therapy management Pharmaceutical care USA 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Mr John Barratt from the University of South Australia and Dr Michael Frakes from the University of Minnesota for their assistance in the data analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    March G, Gilbert AL, Roughead EE, Quintrell N. Developing, evaluating a model for pharmaceutical care in Australian community pharmacies. Int J Pharm Pract 1999;7(4):220–9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roberts MS, Stokes JA, King MA, Lynne TA, Purdie DM Glasziou PP, et al. Outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of a clinical pharmacy intervention in 52 nursing homes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001;51(3):257–65 (9) 2001 March.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: updating the cost of illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc 2001;41(2):192–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2000, ISBN: 0309068371.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fatel P, Zed PJ. Drug-related visits to the emergency department: how big is the problem? Pharmacotherapy. 2002;22(7):915–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care. Second national report on patient safety: improving medication safety; 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Etemand LR, Hay JW. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical care in a medicare drug benefit program. Value Health 2003;6(4):425–35 Jul–Aug.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cipolle RJ, Strand LM, Morley PC. Pharmaceutical care practice. New York: McGraw Hill; 1998, ISBN:0070120463.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cipolle RJ, Strand LM, Morley PC. Pharmaceutical care practice: the clinicians guide. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2004, ISBN: 0071362592.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strand LM, Cipolle RJ, Morley PC, Frakes MJ. The impact of pharmaceutical care practice on the practitioner and the patient in the ambulatory practice setting: twenty five years of experience. Curr Pharm Des 2004;10(31):3987–4001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. Quality use of medicines 2005 [cited; Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/nmp-quality.htm.
  12. 12.
    Chicano P. Identificación y resolución de problemas relacionados con los medicamentos. Experiencia en un centro de salud. (Identification and resolution of drug related problems: experience in a health center). Pharm Care Esp 2002;4:300–13.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Medication Management Systems Inc. 2006 [cited 2006 3rdJuly]; Available from: http://www.medsmanagement.com/index.html.
  14. 14.
    Gilbert AL, Beilby J, Mott K. Quality use of medicines in the community: an implementation trial about collaborative medication management services, final report to the commonwealth department of health and aged care. 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Practice Management Information Corporation. International classification of diseases, 9th revision. Clinical modification (ICD-9-CM). 6th ed. Los Angeles: CA; 2004.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. Australian statistics on medicine. Canberra: Ausinfo; 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doucette WR, McDonough RP, Klepser D, McCarthy R. Comprehensive medication therapy management: identifying and resolving drug-related issues in a community pharmacy. Clin Ther 2005;27(7):1104–11.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paulino EI, Bouvy ML, Gastelurrutia MA, Guerreiro M, Buurma H. Drug related problems identified by European community pharmacists in patients discharged from hospital. Pharm World Sci 2004;26(6):353–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Westerlund T, Almarsdottir AB, Melander A. Factors influencing the detection rate of drug-related problems in community pharmacy. Pharm World Sci 1999;21:245–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deepa Rao
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrew Gilbert
    • 1
  • Linda M. Strand
    • 2
  • Robert J. Cipolle
    • 2
  1. 1.Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, Sansom Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical SciencesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.College of PharmacyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations