Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 476–482 | Cite as

Drug-related problems in prescribed medicines in Germany at the time of dispensing

  • Andrea Nicolas
  • Christiane Eickhoff
  • Nina GrieseEmail author
  • Martin Schulz
Research Article

Abstract

Background Drug-related problems (DRPs) can have an important impact on the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy. In Germany, the frequency of DRPs in prescribed medicines in ambulatory care is not yet known. Objective To quantify DRPs in prescribed medicines identified by community pharmacists (CPs) at the time the medicine is dispensed. Setting German CPs in four different regions. Method We invited CPs to document one hundred consecutive patients presenting prescriptions using a standardized documentation form. For each patient, person- and medication-related as well as identified DRP-related data were documented. Data were transcribed electronically, coded if necessary, checked for validity, and analyzed. Main outcome measure Nature and frequency of DRPs. Results In total, 143 CPs documented 14,231 patients with 24,422 prescribed drugs and identified DRPs in 2,556 patients (18.0 %). Analyses resulted in 0.23 DRPs per patient and 0.13 DRPs per prescribed medicine. Four DRPs were responsible for almost 70 % of all DRPs: Potential drug–drug interaction (22.9 %), dose not known to patient (21.7 %), patient insecure due to generic substitution (13.5 %), and insufficient patient knowledge of correct drug use (10.9 %). If a patient’s drug file was kept in the pharmacy, specific types of DRPs were detected more frequently e.g., drug–drug interactions (p < 0.001). Interventions primarily comprised counselling, monitoring, and changing drug or instructions for use. The prescribing physician was contacted in 28 % of DRPs resulting in a change of these prescriptions in 50 % of the cases. Overall and according to the pharmacists, more than 90 % of the DRPs detected were partially (10.4 %) or completely (85.4 %) solved. Conclusion We quantified DRPs in prescribed medicines in daily ambulatory care practice in Germany. When filling a prescription, in nearly 20 % of the patients relevant DRPs were revealed. According to the pharmacists, the majority could be partially or completely solved during the encounter at the pharmacy. Keeping a patient’s drug file including patient specific data may facilitate the detection of DRPs and shall, therefore, be offered to patients more often.

Keywords

Community pharmacy Drug-related problems Drug safety Germany Pharmacy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all participating community pharmacists for making this piece of research possible, Christiane Sauerwein for generating the database and data analyses, and Susanne vom Scheidt, both from the Department of Medicine at ABDA, Berlin, for supporting study organization and critical reading of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by ABDA—Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists, Berlin, Germany.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Supplementary material

11096_2013_9769_MOESM1_ESM.doc (61 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 61 kb)
11096_2013_9769_MOESM2_ESM.doc (70 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 70 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE). The PCNE classification V6.2. http://www.pcne.org/sig/drp/drug-related-problems.php. Accessed 3 July 2012.
  2. 2.
    Beijer HJ, de Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24:46–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279:1200–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, Begaud B. Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: cross sectional incidence study. French pharmacovigilance centres. BMJ. 2000;320:1036.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Westerlund T, Marklund B. Assessment of the clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacy interventions in drug-related problems. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2009;34:319–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winterstein AG, Sauer BC, Hepler CD, Poole C. Preventable drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36:1238–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson JA, Bootman JL. Drug-related morbidity and mortality. A cost-of-illness model. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:1949–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: updating the cost-of-illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 2001;41:192–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eichenberger PM, Lampert ML, Kahmann IV, van Mil JW, Hersberger KE. Classification of drug-related problems with new prescriptions using a modified PCNE classification system. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32:362–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hämmerlein A, Griese N, Schulz M. Survey of drug-related problems identified by community pharmacies. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41:1825–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewinski D, Wind S, Belgardt C, Plate V, Behles C, Schweim HG. Prevalence and safety-relevance of drug-related problems in German community pharmacies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:141–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Westerlund LT, Marklund BR, Handl WH, Thunberg ME, Allebeck P. Nonprescription drug-related problems and pharmacy interventions. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35:1343–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Westerlund T, Almarsdottir AB, Melander A. Drug-related problems and pharmacy interventions in community practice. Int J Pharm Pract. 1999;7:40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eickhoff C, Schulz M. Pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies: practice and research in Germany. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:729–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eickhoff C, Hämmerlein A, Griese N, Schulz M. Nature and frequency of drug-related problems in self-medication (over-the-counter drugs) in daily community pharmacy practice in Germany. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:254–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ABDA—Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Apothekerverbände. Leitfaden “Beratung in der Apotheke”; 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. Oslo; 2003.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ABDATA Pharma-Daten-Service. ABDA-Datenbank [computer program]. Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft Deutscher Apotheker mbH. Germany: Eschborn; 2010.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ax F, Branstad J-O, Westerlund T. Pharmacy counselling models: a means to improve drug use. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2010;35:439–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benrimoj SI, Langford JH, Berry G, Collins D, Lauchlan R, Stewart K, et al. Clinical intervention rates in community pharmacy: a randomised trial of the effect of education and a professional allowance. Int J Pharm Pract. 2003;11:71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poston J, Kennedy R, Waruszynski B. Initial results from the community pharmacist intervention study. Can Pharm J. 1995;127:18–24.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rupp MT, DeYoung M, Schondelmeyer SW. Prescribing problems and pharmacist interventions in community practice. Med Care. 1992;30:926–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Mil JW, Dudok van Heel MC, Boersma M, Tromp TF. Interventions and documentation for drug-related problems in Dutch community pharmacies. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001;58:1428–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andersson AC, Brodin H, Nilsson JLG. Pharmacist interventions in relation to patient drug-related problems. J Soc Adm Pharm. 2003;20:82–91.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buurma H, De Smet PA, van den Hoff OP, Egberts AC. Nature, frequency and determinants of prescription modifications in Dutch community pharmacies. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;52:85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hawksworth GM, Corlett AJ, Wright DJ, Chrystyn H. Clinical pharmacy interventions by community pharmacists during the dispensing process. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;47:695–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leemans L, Veroeveren L, Bulens J, Hendrickx C, Keyenberg W, Niesten F, et al. Frequency and trends of interventions of prescriptions in Flemish community pharmacies. Pharm World Sci. 2003;25:65–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Westein MP, Herings RM, Leufkens HG. Determinants of pharmacists’ interventions linked to prescription processing. Pharm World Sci. 2001;23:98–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Nicolas
    • 1
  • Christiane Eickhoff
    • 1
  • Nina Griese
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Schulz
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MedicineABDA—Federal Union of German Associations of PharmacistsBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of PharmacologyGoethe-University Frankfurt am MainFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations