Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 173–177 | Cite as

Medication control in hospitals. A practical approach to the problem of drug‐drug interactions.

  • Ed H. Wiltink
Article

Abstract

An important task of pharmacists is medication control by screening the medication of an individual patient. Many computerized drug interaction screening programs are available, but they all have their drawbacks. Screening without a computerized program is possible, but very time‐consuming. In contrast to daily living at home, the patient in a hospital setting is carefully monitored and relevant biochemical para‐meters are regularly checked. Many potential drug interactions are countered immediately by changing (dosage of) medication. The aim of our study was to determine the number of drug‐drug interactions and (pseudo)double medications on the internal, pulmonary and cardiological ward in order to discuss them with the physicians. During this discussion the clinical relevance of interactions was determined. We conclude that the number of clinically relevant interactions and (pseudo)double medication is limited, but that the role of the pharmacist is an important one, especially with regard to medication, that is not regularly used on a ward. Potential drug interactions should be predicted and dealt with by close teamwork of physician and pharmacist at the moment medication is prescribed.

Clinical relevance Double medication Drug‐drug interactions Medication screening Drug combinations Polypharmacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jankel CA, Speedie SM. Detecting drug interactions: a review of the literature. Ann Pharmacother 1990;24:982-9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jankel CA, Bradley CM. Evaluation of six computerized drug interaction screening programs. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992;49:1430-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elanjian S, Gora ML, Symes LR. Methods used by pharmacy departments to identify drug interactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1993;50:2546-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Commentaren medicatiebewaking Pharmacom en Medicom. Haarlem, The Netherlands: Stichting Health Base, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hansten PD, Horn JR, Koda-Kimble MA, Young LY, eds. Drug interactions and updates. Vancouver, Canada: Applied Therapeutics, Inc., 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Puckett WH Jr, Visconti JA. An epidemiological study of the clinical significance of drug-drug interactions in a private community hospital. Am J Hosp Pharm 1971;23:247-53.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karch FE, Lasagna L. Adverse drug reactions: a critical review. Journal of the American Medical Association 1975;234:1236-41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roberts JS, Watrous ML, Schulz RM, Mauch RP, Nightengale BS. Quantifying the clinical significance of drug-drug interactions: scaling pharmacists' perceptions of a common interaction classification scheme. Ann Pharmacother 1996;30;926-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brodie MJ, Feely J. Adverse drug interactions. Br Med J 1988;296:845-9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steurs MH, Kuks PFM, Leusink JA, Lau HS, de Boer A, Porsius AJ. Quality of drug therapy at an intensive care unit. Pharm World Sci 1993;15(6):L4 (Abstract).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ed H. Wiltink
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical PharmacySt. Antonius HospitalNieuwegeinThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations