Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 734–741 | Cite as

Characterization of drug-related problems identified by clinical pharmacy staff at Danish hospitals

  • Lene Juel Kjeldsen
  • Trine Birkholm
  • Hanne Fischer
  • Trine Graabæk
  • Karina Porsborg Kibsdal
  • Lene Vestergaard Ravn-Nielsen
  • Tania Holtum Truelshøj
Research Article

Abstract

Background In 2010, a database of drug related problems (DRPs) was implemented to assist clinical pharmacy staff in documenting clinical pharmacy activities locally. A study of quality, reliability and generalisability showed that national analyses of the data could be conducted. Analyses at the national level may help identify and prevent DRPs by performing national interventions. Objective The aim of the study was to explore the DRP characteristics as documented by clinical pharmacy staff at hospital pharmacies in the Danish DRP-database during a 3-year period. Setting Danish hospital pharmacies. Method Data documented in the DRP-database during the initial 3 years after implementation were analyzed retrospectively. The DRP-database contains DRPs reported at hospitals by clinical pharmacy staff. The analyses focused on DRP categories, implementation rates and drugs associated with the DRPs. Main outcome measure Characteristics of DRPs. Results In total, 72,044 DRPs were documented in the DRP-database during the first 3 years of implementation, and the number of documented DRPs increased every year. An overall stable implementation rate of approximately 58 % was identified. The DRPs identified were multi-facetted, however evenly distributed for each of the 3 years. The most frequently identified DRP categories were: “Dose”, followed by “Nonadherence to guidelines” and “Supplement to treatment”. The highest implementation rates were found for the following DRP categories: “Non-adherence to guidelines” (79 %) followed by “Therapeutic duplication” (73 %) and “Dosing time and interval” (70 %). Even though the top 25 drugs were involved in 58 % of all DRPs, multiple drugs were associated with DRPs. The drugs most frequently involved in DRPs were paracetamol (4.6 % of all DRPs), simvastatin (3.0 %), lansoprazole (2.7 %), morphine (2.6 %) and alendronic acid (2.4 %). Conclusions The study found that a national database on DRPs contained multi-facetted DRPs, however evenly distributed for each of the 3 years. Even though the top 25 drugs were involved in 58 % of all DRPs, multiple drugs were associated with DRPs. The study emphasizes the importance of detecting and intervening for DRPs.

Keywords

Clinical pharmacy Database Denmark DRP Drug-related problem Hospital Medication review 

Notes

Acknowledgments

None.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    van den Bemt PM, Egberts TC, de Jong-van den Berg LT, Brouwers JR. Drug-related problems in hospitalised patients. Drug Saf. 2000;22(4):321–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krähenbühl-Melcher A, Schlienger R, Lampert M, Haschke M, Drewe J, Krähenbühl S. Drug-related problems in hospitals: a review of the recent literature. Drug Saf. 2007;30(5):379–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graabaek T, Kjeldsen LJ. Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists at hospitals lead to improved patient outcomes: a systematic review. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;112(6):359–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Mil F, Westerlund T, Hersberger KE, Schaefer MA. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:859–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Westerlund LOT, Handl WHA, Marklund BRG, Allebeck P. Pharmacy practitioners’ views on computerized documentation of drug-related problems. Ann Pharmacother. 2003;37:354–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kjeldsen et al. Manuscript submitted to IJCP for review.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. The anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification system. http://www.whocc.no/atc/structure_and_principles/. Accessed 16 Dec 2013.
  8. 8.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47:533–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Uttech KM, Lewis IK, et al. A method for assessing drug therapy appropriateness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:1045–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ASHP guidelines on a standardized method for pharmaceutical care. In: Deffenbaugh J, editor. Best practices for health-system pharmacy. Bethesda: American society of health-system pharmacists. 1996, pp. 109–11.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. DRP-classification V6.2. http://pcne.org/sig/drp/documents/PCNE%20classification%20V6-2.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2013.
  12. 12.
    Grønkjær LS, Jensen ML, Madsen H, Hallas J. Successful implementation of pharmaceutical intervention at an acute medical admission unit. Ugeskr Laege. 2011;173(19):1353–5.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kjeldsen LJ, Olesen C, Truelshøj T, Nielsen LB. Quality assurance of medical treatment—an approach by Danish clinical pharmacists. EJHP Pract. 2011;17:31–4.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mogensen CB, Olsen I, Thisted AR. Pharmacist advice is accepted more for medical than for surgical patients in an emergency department. Dan Med J. 2013;60(8):A4682.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mogensen CB, Thisted AR, Olsen I. Medication problems are frequent and often serious in a Danish emergency department and may be discovered by clinical pharmacists. Dan Med J. 2012;59(11):A4532.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Munk CL, Bendixen HK, Kjeldsen LJ. Medication review with a focus on fracture prophylaxis among patients suffering collum femoris fractures. EJHP Pract. 2011;17:26–30.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nielsen TR, Andersen SE, Rasmussen M, Honoré PH. Clinical pharmacist service in the acute ward. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(6):1137–51.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bladh L, Ottosson E, Karlsson J, Klintberg L, Wallerstedt SM. Effects of a clinical pharmacist service on health-related quality of life and prescribing of drugs: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:738–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blix HS, Viktil KK, Moger TA, Reikvam A. Characteristics of drug-related problems discussed by hospital pharmacists in multidisciplinary teams. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28:152–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khalili H, Farsaei S, Rezaee H, Dashti-Khavidaki S. Role of clinical pharmacists’ interventions in detection and prevention of medication errors in a medical ward. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33:281–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spinewine A, Dhillon S, Mallet L, Tulkens PM, Wilmotte L, Swine C. Implementation of ward-based clinical pharmacy services in Belgium—description of the impact on a geriatric unit. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:720–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Westerlund T, Gelin U, Pettersson E, Skärlund F, Wågström K, Ringbom C. A retrospective analysis of drug-related problems documented in a national database. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35:202–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lene Juel Kjeldsen
    • 1
  • Trine Birkholm
    • 2
  • Hanne Fischer
    • 1
  • Trine Graabæk
    • 3
  • Karina Porsborg Kibsdal
    • 4
  • Lene Vestergaard Ravn-Nielsen
    • 5
  • Tania Holtum Truelshøj
    • 6
  1. 1.The Danish Research Unit for Hospital PharmacyAmgros I/SCopenhagen ØDenmark
  2. 2.The Hospital PharmacyRoskildeRegion Zealand, Denmark
  3. 3.Centre for Clinical ResearchHospital South West JutlandEsbjergDenmark
  4. 4.The Hospital PharmacyAalborgNorth Denmark Region, Denmark
  5. 5.Clinical Pharmacy Unit of Odense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  6. 6.The Hospital PharmacyAarhusCentral Denmark Region, Denmark

Personalised recommendations