Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 394–403 | Cite as

Evaluating categorisation and clinical relevance of drug-related problems in medication reviews

  • Anne Gerd Granas
  • Christian Berg
  • Vidar Hjellvik
  • Cecilie Haukereid
  • Arvid Kronstad
  • Hege S. Blix
  • Bente Kilhovd
  • Kirsten K. Viktil
  • Anne Marie Horn
Research Article

Abstract

Objectives We aimed to evaluate the categorisation and clinical relevance of DRPs identified by community pharmacists, and further, to assess the quality of interventions with the patients and the physicians as documented by the pharmacists. Setting 23 Norwegian community pharmacies. Method Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited by 24 community pharmacists who performed structured medication reviews based on the patients’ drug profiles and patient interviews. The DRPs identified were subsequently categorised. An evaluation group (EG) retrospectively evaluated the reviews. Clinical/practical relevance of each DRP and quality of community pharmacists’ intervention with patients and physician were scored. Average agreement between the EG and the community pharmacists was calculated. Internal agreement in the EG was calculated using a modified version of Fleiss’ Kappa coefficient. Results A total of 73 patients were included (mean age 62 years, 52% female, on average prescribed 8.7 drugs). The pharmacists identified 88 DRPs in 43 of the patients. The most common DRPs were adverse drug reactions (22%) and wrong drug or dose used by patient (14%). Anti-diabetic drugs and lipid modifying drugs were associated with the most DRPs. The EG agreed with detection and categorisation of DRPs in more than 80% of the cases. The clinical/practical relevance of the detected DRPs was scored by the EG to be high or medium in 87% of the cases. The quality of the follow-up with patients and physicians was scored to be good or satisfactory in 93 and 98% of the cases, respectively. Conclusions Pre-defined categories of DRPs supported by structured forms were reliable and valid tools for identifying DRPs. The evaluation demonstrated that community pharmacists were able to identify DRPs of high to medium clinical/practical relevance, and to perform follow-ups of the DRPs with the patients and the physicians with a good or satisfactory quality.

Keywords

Community pharmacy Drug-related problems Evaluation Medication review PCNE DRP classification Type 2 diabetes 

References

  1. 1.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gray S, Woolfrey S, Copeland R, Gill D, Dennett G. Evaluating the potential impact of community pharmacy interventions on patient care in Northumberland. Qual Prim Care. 2004;12(1):47–51.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindenmeyer A, Hearnshaw H, Vermeire E, Van Royen P, Wens J, Biot Y. Interventions to improve adherence to medication in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review of the literature on the role of pharmacists. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2006;31(5):409–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Granas AG, Bates I. The effect of pharmaceutical review of repeat prescribing in general practice. Int J Pharm Pract. 1999;7(7):264–75.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Viktil KK, Blix HS, Moger TA, Reikvam A. Interview of patients by pharmacists contributes significantly to the identification of drug-related problems (DRPs). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15(9):667–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Mil JW, Westerlund LO, Hersberger KE, Schaefer MA. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(5):859–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ernst ME, Doucette WR, Dedhiya SD, Osterhaus MC, Kumbera PA, Osterhaus JT, et al. Use of point-of-service health status assessments by community pharmacists to identify and resolve drug-related problems in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Pharmacother. 2001;21(8):988–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ruths S, Straand J, Nygaard HA. Multidisciplinary medication review in nursing home residents: what are the most significant drug-related problems? The Bergen District Nursing Home (BEDNURS) study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(3):176–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blix HS, Viktil KK, Reikvam A, Moger TA, Hjemaas BJ, Pretsch P, et al. The majority of hospitalised patients have drug-related problems: results from a prospective study in general hospitals. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;60(9):651–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanlon JT, Lindblad CI, Gray SL. Can clinical pharmacy services have a positive impact on drug-related problems and health outcomes in community-based older adults? Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2004;2(1):3–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krass I, Taylor SJ, Smith C, Armour CL. Impact on medication use and adherence of Australian pharmacists’ diabetes care services. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2005;45(1):33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mokdad AH, Bowman BA, Ford ES, Vinicor F, Marks JS, Koplan JP. The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States. JAMA. 2001;286(10):1195–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wermeille J, Bennie M, Brown I, McKnight J. Pharmaceutical care model for patients with type 2 diabetes: integration of the community pharmacist into the diabetes team–a pilot study. Pharm World Sci. 2004;26(1):18–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haugbolle LS, Sorensen EW. Drug-related problems in patients with angina pectoris, type 2 diabetes and asthma—interviewing patients at home. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28(4):239–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watson MC, Norris P, Granas AG. A systematic review of the use of simulated patients and pharmacy practice research. Int J Pharm Pract. 2006;14(2):83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. 2005. WHO Collaborating Centre, Oslo, Norway. http://www.whocc.no.
  17. 17.
    Ruths S, Viktil KK, Blix HS. Classification of drug-related problems. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007;127(23):3073–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A language and environment for statistical computing. R-project org. 2007. [cited 2008 Mar. 13]. http://www.R-project.org.
  19. 19.
    Fleiss JL, Cuzick J. The reliability of dichotomous judgement: unequal number of judgements per subject. Appl Psychol Meas. 1979;3:537–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall; 2007.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nathan A, Goodyer L, Lovejoy A, Rashid A. ‘Brown bag’ medication reviews as a means of optimizing patients’ use of medication and of identifying potential clinical problems. Fam Pract. 1999;16(3):278–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Britten N, Stevenson FA, Barry CA, Barber N, Bradley CP. Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study. BMJ. 2000;320(7233):484–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Machado M, Bajcar J, Guzzo GC, Einarson TR. Sensitivity of patient outcomes to pharmacist interventions. Part I: systematic review and meta-analysis in diabetes management. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(10):1569–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee SS, Schwemm AK, Reist J, Cantrell M, Andreski M, Doucette WR, et al. Pharmacists’ and pharmacy students’ ability to identify drug-related problems using TIMER (Tool to Improve Medications in the Elderly via Review). Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(3):52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kjome RL, Sandberg S, Granas AG. Diabetes care in Norwegian pharmacies: a descriptive study. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(2):191–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gorard DA. Escalating polypharmacy. QJM. 2006;99(11):797–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haavik S, Horn AM, Mellbye KS, Kjonniksen I, Granas AG. Prescription errors—dimension and measures. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2006;126(3):296–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mandt I, Horn AM, Ekedahl A, Granas AG. Community pharmacists’ prescription intervention practices—exploring variations in practice in Norwegian pharmacies. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2010;6(1);6–17.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mandt I, Horn AM, Granas AG. Communication about prescription interventions between pharmacists and general practitioners. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2009;129(18):1846–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    MacRae F, Lowrie R, Kinn S, Fish A. Patient views of pharmacist-led medication review clinics: a preliminary study. Int J Pharm Prac. 2003;11:R6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bero LA, Lipton HL, Bird JA. Characterization of geriatric drug-related hospital readmissions. Med Care. 1991;29(10):989–1003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Roozendaal BW, Krass I. Development of an evidence-based checklist for the detection of drug related problems in type 2 diabetes. Pharm World Sci. 2009;31(5):580–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Gerd Granas
    • 1
  • Christian Berg
    • 2
  • Vidar Hjellvik
    • 2
  • Cecilie Haukereid
    • 3
  • Arvid Kronstad
    • 4
  • Hege S. Blix
    • 2
  • Bente Kilhovd
    • 5
  • Kirsten K. Viktil
    • 6
  • Anne Marie Horn
  1. 1.Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Centre for PharmacyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute of Public HealthOsloNorway
  3. 3.Frogner apotekOsloNorway
  4. 4.Apotek1SandefjordNorway
  5. 5.Department of EndocrinologyOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  6. 6.Diakonhjemmet Hospital Pharmacy and Department of PharmacotherapeuticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations