Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 767–775 | Cite as

Structure and procedures of the pharmacy and therapeutic committees in Spanish hospitals

  • Francesc PuigventósEmail author
  • Bernardo Santos-Ramos
  • Ana Ortega
  • Esther Durán-García
Research Article

Abstract

Objective Define the structure and working procedures of the Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committees (P&T Committees) in Spanish hospitals. Setting Hospitals over 75 beds located in all regions of the Spanish State. Method A cross-sectional descriptive study based on the completion of a questionnaire that consisted of 138 questions. The participants were recruited by post, e-mail and telephone between November 2007 and January 2008. The Hospitals were classified according to their size and public or private and university or non-university status. Main outcome measures They are related with the structure and composition of the P&T Committees, performance, drug evaluation process, working methods and the results of their activity. Results A total of 200 hospitals answered the questionnaire (response rate of 39.0% of hospitals and 57.1% of the beds in Spain). All the hospitals have P&T Committees, 99.5% have a Drug Formulary, 71.0% have a Therapeutic Interchange Programme and 91.0% have a document determining the mission, objectives and functions of the P&T Committee. Almost all hospitals (95.5%) have established a formal application for the inclusion of a drug in the hospital, while 80.5% have established a model for evaluation reports. The mean (SD) number of participants in P&T Committees was 11.84 (3.82). The annual mean of drugs evaluated per hospital was 10.35 (7.45). The proportion of assessments that concludes the inclusion, rejection or deferral of the decision was 75.3, 21.4 and 3.2%, respectively. Conclusion Spanish P&T Committees have a similar structure and function, a multi-disciplinary professional composition to carry out an important assessment activity. This activity is higher in large hospitals and in university hospitals. The proportion of the approved and rejected drugs is similar in different types of hospital. The Therapeutic Interchange Guidelines, the use of application models and the reports follow the indications of scientific collaborative groups, thus being used more in Spain than in other countries.

Keywords

Data collection Decision-making Formularies  Hospital Pharmacy and therapeutics committee Organizational Questionnaires Spain 

Notes

Acknowledgments

T. Requena (Hospital Universitario La Paz. Madrid), J. P. Ordovás (Hospital General Universitario de Alicante), M. A. Porta (Hospital Universitario Juan Canalejo. La Coruña), J. M. Recalde (Centro Andaluz de Documentación e Información de Medicamentos. Granada), C. Calvo (Servicio de Salud de Illes Balears. Palma de Mallorca), E. Corpas, L. García-Mochón and M. Moya (Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública. Granada).

Funding

This study was supported by the Carlos III Health Institute (Instituto de Salud Carlos III), Ministry of Health and Social Policy in Spain.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Mannebach MA, Ascione FJ, Gaither Ca, Baggozi RP, Cohen IA, Ryan ML. Activities, functions, and structure of pharmacy and therapeutics committees in large teaching hospitals. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 1999;56:622–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tyler LS, Cole SW, May JR, Millares M, Valentino MA, Vermeulen LC Jr, et al. ASHP Expert Panel on Formulary Management. ASHP guidelines on the pharmacy and therapeutics committee and the formulary system. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2008;65:1272–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fijn R, Brouwers JR, Knaap RJ. Drug and Therapeutics (D & T) committees in Dutch hospitals: a nation-wide survey of structure, activities, and drug selection procedures. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;48:239–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pedersen CA, Schneider PJ, Santell JP. ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: prescribing and transcribing–2001. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2001;58:2251–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pedersen CA, Schneider PJ, Scheckelhoff DJ. ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: prescribing and transcribing–2004. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2005;62:378–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thurmann PA, Harder S, Steioff A. Structure and activities of hospital drug committees in Germany’. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;52:429–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tan EL, Day RO, Brien JA. Prioritising drug and therapeutics committee (DTC) decisions: a national survey. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29:90–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooke J, Mason AR, Drummond MF, Towse AK. Medication management in English National Health Service hospitals. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2005;62:189–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Willems L, Raymakers A, Sermeus W, Vleugels A, Laekeman G. Survey of hospital pharmacy practice in Flemish-speaking Belgium. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2005;62:321–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mittmann N, Knowles S. A survey of Pharmacy and Therapeutic committees across Canada: scope and responsibilities. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;16:e171–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shalansky SJ, Virk R, Ackman M, Jackevicius C, Kertland H, Tsuyuki R, et al. Access to new cardiovascular therapies in Canadian hospitals: a national survey of the formulary process. Can J Cardiol. 2003;19:173–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spanish Ministry of Health and Social Policy. Spanish Government. SNS Primary Care Centres Records and the Nacional Hospital Records (internet database). Madrid. Ministry of Health and Social Policy, 2007. 20 July 2010. Available from: http://www.msps.es/ciudadanos/prestaciones/centrosServiciosSNS/hospitales/home.htm.
  13. 13.
    Santos B, Flores S, Briones E, Marín R, Gallego S, Bautista FJ. Update of the guide for the introduction of new drugs. Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment, Seville. Reports, studies and research. Edited by the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs. Madrid (Spain), 2007. 20 July 2010. Available from: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud/servicios/contenidos/nuevaaetsa/up/AETSA_2006_03_GINF.pdf.
  14. 14.
    Marín R, Santos B, Briones E, Flores S, Gallego S, Bautista J. Implementation of the guidelines for the introduction of new drugs (GINF) in Andalusian hospitals. Farm Hosp. 2007;31:212–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Group for Innovation Assessment, Standardisation and Research in the Selection of Drugs (GENESIS) of the Spanish Association of Hospital Pharmacy. Madre Programme. Procedures Manual. PDF 3.0 version. September 2005. 20 July 2010. Available from: http://genesis.sefh.es/basesmetodologicas/programamadre/index.html.
  16. 16.
    Walk SU, Bertsche T, Kaltschmidt J, Pruszydlo MG, Hoppe-Tichy T, Walter-Sack I, et al. Rule-based standardised switching of drugs at the interface between primary and tertiary care. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64:319–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gray T, Bertch K, Galt K, Gonyeau M, Karpiuk E, Oyen L, et al. American College of Clinical Pharmacy. Guidelines for therapeutic interchange—2004. Pharmacotherapy. 2005;11:1666–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Delgado O, Puigventós F, Llodrá V, Comas F, Cervera M, Sánchez A, et al. Program for the substitution of therapeutic equivalents in the hospital setting. Rev Clin Esp. 2000;200:261–70.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Porta B, Borras C, Jimenez NV. Therapeutic interchange standardization for angiotensin II receptor antagonists in the treatment of hypertension in the hospital setting. Farm Hosp. 2005;29:104–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peris JF, Faus VJ, de la Vega A, Martines G, Martínez MA. Therapeutic interchange between angiotensin II receptor blockers in institutionalized elderly patients: implementing a protocol. Farm Hosp. 2003;27:290–7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Navarro S, Font I, Lerma E, López E, Martínez MJ, Poveda JL. Therapeutic interchange of drugs not included in the hospitals pharmacotherapeutic guide: a quality programme. Farm Hosp. 2004;28:266–74.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Márquez-Peiró JF, Porta-Oltra B, Borrás-Almenar C. Therapeutic exchange of angiotensin II receptor antagonists in patients hospitalised in a thraumatology unit. Farm Hosp. 2009;33:66–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crespí M, Delgado O, Ventayol P, Lafuente A, Pinteño M, Escrivá A, et al. A prospective randomized study of sulphonylureas therapeutic interchange in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Farm Hosp. 2004;28:426–32.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alós M, Mangues MA, Santos-Ramos B. Spanish presence in BPS accreditation. Farm Hosp. 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.farma.2010.01.003.
  25. 25.
    Fry RN, Avey SG, Sullivan SD. The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Format for Formulary Submissions: an evolving standard—a Foundation for Managed Care Pharmacy Task Force report. Value Health. 2003;6:505–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Australian Government. Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee [Internet]. 20 July 2010. Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-pubs-pharmpac-gusubpac.htm.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesc Puigventós
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bernardo Santos-Ramos
    • 2
  • Ana Ortega
    • 3
  • Esther Durán-García
    • 4
  1. 1.Pharmacy DepartmentHospital Universitario Son DuretaPalma de MallorcaSpain
  2. 2.Pharmacy DepartmentHospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio SevilleSpain
  3. 3.Pharmacy DepartmentClínica Universidad de NavarraPamplonaSpain
  4. 4.Pharmacy DepartmentHospital General Universitario Gregorio MarañónMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations