Background In line with the changing role of community pharmacists, we describe here a standardised procedure for detecting DRPs in elderly patients for use in community pharmacies. Objectives The primary aim was to describe the number and type of DRPs identified by community pharmacists in elderly patients. Secondary aims were to determine the number and type of associated pharmacist interventions (PIs) that were transmitted to the prescribers, and to identify risk factors associated with the occurrence of a PI. Setting Community pharmacies. Methods In this prospective, multicentre study, pharmacists received patients aged 65 and over. During a 30-min interview with patients who agreed to participate, patient characteristics were recorded such as age, weight, height, frailty (using the Short Emergency Geriatric Assessment grid), estimated renal function and compliance with treatment assessed by the Girerd scale. Main outcome measure DRPs characteristics. Results A total of 892 patients agreed to participate in 55 pharmacies. Among them 334 DRPs were identified and were associated with 259 PIs. Eighty-nine PIs of 259 were sent to the prescribing physicians; 70 (78%) were implemented by the general practitioner. Factors associated with the occurrence of a DRP are compliance problems [odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.26–2.58)], frailty [OR = 1.3, 95% CI (1.01–1.66)], number of prescribed drugs per day [OR = 1.46, 95% CI (1.02–2.07)] and GFR < 60 mL/min [OR = 1.49, 95% CI (1.01–2.2)]. Conclusion This is the first standardised pharmaceutical assessment dedicated to the elderly carried out by community pharmacists in France. If implemented, it could help to find drug-related problems, identify frail elderly patients and ultimately decrease their exposure to iatrogenic medication errors.
Community pharmacy services Drug-related problems France Geriatrics Interprofessional relationships Medication adherence Medication review Pharmacoepidemiology
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors wish to thank students and community pharmacists who participated in this study, the representatives of the bodies which supported them, the administrative and medical staffs of the Bertinot Juel Hospital Center in Chaumont-en-Vexin, who actively participate in reflections on clinical pharmacy.
This study was funded by the Agence Régionale de Santé de Picardie, the Collège Régional des Pharmaciens Maîtres de stage de Picardie, the Association de Pharmacie Hospitalière de l’Oise, la Somme et l’Aisne (APHOSA) and the Bertinot Juel Hospital Center of Chaumont-en-Vexin.
Conflicts of interest
Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.Google Scholar
Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):15–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Krska J, Cromarty JA, Arris F, Jamieson D, Hansford D, Duffus PR, et al. Pharmacist-led medication review in patients over 65: a randomized, controlled trial in primary care. Age Ageing. 2001;30(3):205–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Morice E, Gabriel-Bordenave C, Auclair V, Juste M, Roberge C. Évaluation de la pratique d’analyse d’ordonnance dans les hôpitaux français [Evaluation of prescription checking practices by French hospital Pharmacists]. Le Pharmacien Hospitalier et Clinicien. 2011;46(3):293–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin SF, Van Mil JW, Da Costa FA. The organizational framework of community pharmacies in Europe. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37(5):896–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris IM, Phillips B, Boyce E, Griesbach S, Hope C, Sanoski C, et al. Clinical pharmacy should adopt a consistent process of direct patient care. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34(8):e133–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, et al. Adverse drug events prevention group. The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1997;277(4):307–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Gallagher J, Byrne S, Woods N, Lynch D, McCarthy S. Cost-outcome description of clinical pharmacist interventions in a university teaching hospital. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:177.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Dooley MJ, Allen KM, Doecke CJ, Galbraith KJ, Taylor GR, Bright J, et al. A prospective multicentre study of pharmacist initiated changes to drug therapy and patient management in acute care government funded hospitals. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(4):513–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Linjakumpu T, Hartikainen S, Klaukka T, Veijola J, Kivelä SL, Isoaho R. Use of medications and polypharmacy are increasing among the elderly. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:809–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Chan DC, Chen JH, Kuo HK, We CJ, Lu IS, Chiu LS, et al. Drug-related problems (DRPs) identified from geriatric medication safety review clinics. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;54(1):168–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Mangoni AA, Jackson SH. Age-related changes in pharmacokinetics ans pharmacodynamics: basic principles and pratical applications. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57:6–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Charpiat B, Conort O, Juste M, Rose FX, Roubille R, Bedouch P, et al. The French Society of clinical pharmacy ACT-IP project: ten years onward, results and prospects. Le Pharmacien Hospitalier et Clinicien. 2015;50:15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, Kennedy J, O’Mahony D. STOPP (ScreeningTool of Older Person’s Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment). Consensus validation. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;46(2):72–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Oubaya N, Mahmoudi R, Jolly D, Zulfiqar AA, Quignard E, Cunin C, et al. Screening for frailty in elderly subjects living at home: validation of the modified Short Emergency Geriatric assessment (SEGAm) instrument. J Nutr Health Aging. 2014;18(8):757–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Girerd X, Hanon O, Anagnostopoulos K, Ciupek C, Mourad JJ, Consoli S. Evaluation de l’observance du traitement anti-hypertenseur par un questionnaire: mise au point et utilisation dans un service specialisé [Assessment of antihypertensive compliance using a self-administered questionnaire: development and use in a hypertension clinic]. Presse Med. 2001;30:1044–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of diet in renal disease study group. Ann Int Med. 1999;130(6):461–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Allenet B, Bedouch P, Rose FX, Escofier L, Roubille R, Juste M, et al. Validation of an instrument for the documentation of clinical pharmacists interventions. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28:181–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bell JS, Blacker N, Leblanc VT, Alderman PC, Phillips A, Rowett D, et al. Prescribing for older people with chronic renal impairment. Aust Fam Phys. 2013;42(1–2):24–8.Google Scholar
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
Krähenbühl JM, Kremer B, Guignard B, Bugnon O. Practical evaluation of the drug-related problem management process in Swiss community pharmacies. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(6):777–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
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