International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 633–643 | Cite as

Medicines and driving: evaluation of training and software support for patient counselling by pharmacists

  • Sara-Ann LegrandEmail author
  • Sofie Boets
  • Uta Meesmann
  • Alain G. Verstraete
Research Article


Background The consumption of some psychotropic medicines has a negative effect on the fitness to drive. Pharmacists are expected to give useful advice to patients on their participation in traffic. However, almost no information is available on this topic. Objective To assess the effect of training and implementation of new dispensing guidelines with regard to driving-impairing medicines, in two types of dispensing support tools. User acceptance was measured as well as the effect on pharmacists’ attitudes & awareness, self-reported behaviour and knowledge. Setting Pharmacists from East Flanders in Belgium. Methods Two intervention groups and a control group participated. The intervention groups followed a training and were provided with a dispensing support tool containing information on the effect of medicines on driving ability, which was either stand-alone (USB stick) or integrated into the daily used software (ViaNova). The three groups filled out a questionnaire prior to and after the intervention period. Main outcome measure Answers to a pre/post-questionnaire on attitudes and awareness, self-reported behaviour, knowledge and user acceptance. Results Many pharmacists were already strongly interested in the topic at the beginning of the study. Positive changes in attitude, self-reported behaviour and knowledge were measured mostly in the group of pharmacists for which the information was integrated in their daily used software. These pharmacists asked significantly more about the patients’ driving experience, informed them more about driving-related risk and gave more detailed information on impairing effects of medicines. The knowledge of the participating pharmacists on the topic ‘medicines and driving’ remained generally low. The participants acknowledge the importance of being aware of the topic medicines and driving but they report a lack of information or education. They strongly prefer a tool that integrates the information in their daily used software. Conclusion Dispensing support tools with information on the potential impairing effect of a medicine on the fitness to drive increases awareness, reported risk communication behaviour as well as knowledge of pharmacists on this topic. Computerised dispensing support tools are most effective when the information is integrated into the daily used dispensing software.


Community pharmacy Dispensing software Driving Medicines Pharmacists Risk communication Software 



The research team would like to thank all pharmacists involved in the study. A special thanks to Ms Chantal Leirs and Ms Anneleen Janssen from ESCAPO. We would also like to thank Dr. Hilka Wolschrijn for guiding and leading the training sessions. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to the Hellenic Institute of Transport (Greece) for developing the program on the stand alone tool (USB stick) to support the pharmacists in this study.


The present study was part of the European DRUID project and financed by the European Commission.

Conflicts of interest

This article has been produced under the project “Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines” (DRUID) financed by the European Community within the framework of the EU 6th Framework Program (Contract No TREN-05-FP6TR-S07.61320-518404-DRUID). This document reflects only the author’s view. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.


  1. 1.
    Orriols L, Salmi LR, Philip P, Moore N, Delorme B, Castot A, et al. The impact of medicinal drugs on traffic safety: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18(8):647–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    England A, Skurtveit S, Morland J. Risk of road traffic accidents associated with the prescription of drugs: a registry-based cohort study. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(8):597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Movig KL, Mathijssen MP, Nagel PH, van Egmond T, de Gier JJ, Leufkens HG, et al. Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents. Accid Anal Prev. 2004;36(4):631–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verster JC, Mets MA. Psychoactive medication and traffic safety. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(3):1041–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reeve J, Tenni P, Peterson G. An electronic prompt in dispensing software to promote clinical interventions by community pharmacists: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;65(3):377–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wheeler A, Crump K, Lee M, Li L, Patel A, Yang R, Zhao J, Jensen M, et al. Collaborative prescribing: a qualitative exploration of a role for pharmacists in mental health. Res Soc Adm Pharmac. 2012;8(38):179–92. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2011.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nkansah N, Mostovetsky O, Yu C, Chheng T, Beney J, Bond C, et al. Effect of outpatient pharmacists’ non-dispensing roles on patient outcomes and prescribing patterns. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;7(7):CD000336.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beney J, Bero L, Bond C. Expanding the roles of outpatient pharmacists: effects on health services utilisation, costs, and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;3:CD000336.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Royal Decree of 21 January 2009 regarding the remuneration of pharmacists (K.B. van 21 januari 2009 houdende onderrichtingen voor de apothekers).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Gier JJ, Alvarez JF, Mercier-Guyon C, Verstraete AG. Prescribing and dispensing guidelines for medicinal drugs affecting driving performance. In: Verster JC, Pandi-Perumal SD, Ramaekers JG, de Gier JJ, editor. Drugs, driving and traffic safety. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG; 2009. p. 121–34.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Monteiro SP, de Gier JJ. Guidelines and professional standards. Report and CD with examples of ICT supported tools for prescribing and dispensing of medicines affecting driving performance, and for informing patients who use other psychoactive substances than medicines (D 7.2.2) Available at 2011.
  12. 12.
    Ravera S, Monteiro S, de Gier J, van der Linden T, Gómez-Talegón T, Alvarez F, et al. A European approach to categorising medicines for fitness to drive: outcomes of the DRUID project. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04279.x.
  13. 13.
    Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Tetroe J. Implementing clinical guidelines: current evidence and future implications. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004;24(1):31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grol R. Implementation of evidence and guidelines in clinical practice: a new field of research? Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;6:455–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, Thomson O’Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;3:CD000259.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 1998;317(7156):465–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martens JD, Winkens RAG, van der Weijden T, de Bruyn D, Severens JL. Does a joint development and dissemination of multidisciplinary guidelines improve prescribing behaviour: a pre/post study with concurrent control group and a randomised trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;2(6):145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lagerløv P, Loeb M, Andrew M, Hjortdahl P. Improving doctors’ prescribing behaviour through reflection on guidelines and prescription feedback: a randomised controlled study. Qual Health Care. 2000;9(3):159–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes. A systematic Review. JAMA. 1998;280(15):1339–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnston ME, Langton KB, Haynes B, Mathieu A. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome: a critical appraisal of research. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(2):135–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Clercq PA, Blom JA, Korsten HM, Hasman A. Approaches for creating computer interpretable guidelines that facilitate decision support. Artif Intell Med. 2004;31(1):1–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garg A, Adhikari N, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux P, Beyene J, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1223–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martens JD, van der Weijden T, Severens JL, de Clercq PA, de Bruijn DP, Kester ADM, et al. The effect of computer reminders on GPs’ prescribing behaviour: a cluster-randomised trial. Int J Med Inf. 2007;76(3):403–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Margaretis D, Touliou K, Ravera S, Monteiro S, de Gier JJ, Boets S, et al. Training manual for physicians and pharmacists on medicinal drugs and driving (D 7.4.1). Available at www.druid-project.eu2009.
  25. 25.
    Touliou K, Margaritis D, Spandidis P, Monteiro S, Ravera S, de Gier JJ, et al. Report on the implementation, evaluation and new technologies of practice guidelines and information materials (D 7.4.2). Available at 2011.
  26. 26.
    Legrand SA, Boets S, Meesmann U, Van der Linden T, Verstraete A. Belgian country report on the implementation, evaluation and new technologies of practice guidelines and information materials for pharmacists. Section of the EU project DRUID D7.4.2. Available at: 2011.
  27. 27.
    Monteiro S, de Gier JJ. Dutch Country report: pharmacists’ intervention study: implementation an evaluation of DRUID information materials regarding the influence of medicines on driving fitness. DRUID Deliverable 7.4.2. Available at: 2011.
  28. 28.
    Moxey A, Robertson J, Newby D, Hains I, Williamson M, Sallie-Anne Pearson SA. Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(1):25–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahearn M, Kerr S. General practitioners’ perceptions of the pharmaceutical decision-support tools in their prescribing software. Med J Aust. 2003;179(1):34–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berner ES. Ethical and legal issues in the use of health information technology to improve patient safety. HEC Forum. 2008;20(3):243–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith WR. Evidence for the effectiveness of techniques to change physician behaviour. Chest J. 2009;118(2):8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara-Ann Legrand
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sofie Boets
    • 2
  • Uta Meesmann
    • 2
  • Alain G. Verstraete
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology and ImmunologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Belgian Road Safety InstituteBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations