International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 950–959 | Cite as

Development and validation of the Slovenian drug-related problem classification system based on the PCNE classification V 6.2

  • Nejc Horvat
  • Mitja KosEmail author
Research Article


Background Classifying drug-related problems increases pharmacists’ awareness of patients’ drug-related needs and supports the development of counselling skills through increased awareness of the nature and frequency of drug-related problems. No standardised classification system was used in daily pharmacy practice in Slovenia. Objective To translate, upgrade and validate the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) classification V 6.2 for use in Slovenian community pharmacies. Setting Expert panel meetings at the Faculty of Pharmacy and home-based classification validation. Methods The PCNE classification V 6.2 was translated to Slovenian language by forward–backward translation procedure. An expert panel consisting of nine practicing pharmacists upgraded the content of the translated version. Thirty-one community pharmacists validated this version with the PCNE set of 18 patient cases by coding problems, risk factors and interventions they believed were present in each case. The expert panel discussed the results and upgraded the classification accordingly. Afterwards, 33 community pharmacists validated the upgraded version with a set of 40 actual Slovenian pharmacy patient cases. Based on the results, the expert panel formed a final version of the classification. Main outcome measure Coding consistency between community pharmacists. Results The expert panel performed some major modifications to the PCNE classification V 6.2: the potential problem was added as a sub domain to problems domain; the term adverse drug event was used instead of adverse drug reaction; the causes domain was renamed to risk factors and its sub domains were organized into prescribing, dispensing and use of drugs; dispensing errors were specified; use of drugs was organized into intentional and unintentional use of drugs; the sub domains in the interventions domain were divided according to the communication and agreement with the prescriber. The average coding consistencies in the first validation study were 75 % (±16 %) for problems, 74 % (±20 %) for risk factors and 94 % (±10 %) for interventions. The average coding consistencies in the second validation study were 83 % (±16 %) for problems, 85 % (±17 %) for risk factors and 80 % (±20 %) for interventions. Conclusion A drug-related problem classification for use in Slovenian community pharmacies was developed based on The PCNE classification V 6.2. The validation studies demonstrated high coding consistencies.


Classification system Community Pharmacy Drug-related problems PCNE Slovenia Validation 



The authors would like to thank Helena Pavšar, the members of the expert panel and community pharmacists in the validation studies for their contribution to the development of the classification.


No financial support to declare.

Conflicts of interests

The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

11096_2016_320_MOESM1_ESM.docx (35 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35 kb)


  1. 1.
    Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. PCNE Working group on drug-related problems 2015 [cited 2015 16. 4.].
  2. 2.
    Westerlund T, Marklund B. Assessment of the clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacy interventions in drug-related problems. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2009;34(3):319–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Puspitasari HP, Aslani P, Krass I. Pharmacists’ and consumers’ viewpoints on counselling on prescription medicines in Australian community pharmacies. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010;18(4):202–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nicolas A, Eickhoff C, Griese N, Schulz M. Drug-related problems in prescribed medicines in Germany at the time of dispensing. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(3):476–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruths S, Viktil KK, Blix HS. Classification of drug-related problems. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007;127(23):3073–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: updating the cost-of-illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2001;41(2):192–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leendertse AJ, Visser D, Egberts AC, van den Bemt PM. The relationship between study characteristics and the prevalence of medication-related hospitalizations: a literature review and novel analysis. Drug Saf. 2010;33(3):233–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson JA, Bootman JL. Drug-related morbidity and mortality and the economic impact of pharmaceutical care. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1997;54(5):554–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Winterstein AG, Sauer BC, Hepler CD, Poole C. Preventable drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36(7–8):1238–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leendertse AJ, Egberts AC, Stoker LJ, van den Bemt PM. Frequency of and risk factors for preventable medication-related hospital admissions in the Netherlands. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(17):1890–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    van Mil JW, Westerlund LO, Hersberger KE, Schaefer MA. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(5):859–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schaefer M. Discussing basic principles for a coding system of drug-related problems: the case of PI-Doc. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24(4):120–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hohmann C, Eickhoff C, Klotz JM, Schulz M, Radziwill R. Development of a classification system for drug-related problems in the hospital setting (APS-Doc) and assessment of the inter-rater reliability. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37(3):276–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Westerlund T, Gelin U, Pettersson E, Skarlund F, Wagstrom K, Ringbom C. A retrospective analysis of drug-related problems documented in a national database. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(2):202–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Consensus panel ad hoc. Consensus of Granada on drug-related problems. Pharm Care Esp. 1999;1(2):107–12.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Committee of Consensus. Third consensus of Granada on drug-related problems (DRP) and negative outcomes associated with medication (NOM). Ars Pharm. 2007;48(1):5–17.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams M, Peterson GM, Tenni PC, Bindoff IK, Stafford AC. DOCUMENT: a system for classifying drug-related problems in community pharmacy. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(1):43–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. Classification for Drug related problems V6.2 2010 [cited 2015 23.4.].
  20. 20.
    Basger BJ, Moles RJ, Chen TF. Application of drug-related problem (DRP) classification systems: a review of the literature. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70(7):799–815.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strom BL. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1994. p. xviii.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bates DW. Medication errors. How common are they and what can be done to prevent them? Drug Saf. 1996;15(5):303–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bates DW, Boyle DL, Vander Vliet MB, Schneider J, Leape L. Relationship between medication errors and adverse drug events. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(4):199–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van den Bemt PM, Egberts AC. Drug-related problems: definitions and classification. EJHP Pract. 2007;13(1):62–4.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention. About Medication Errors: What is a Medication Error? [cited 2015 4.8.].

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations