Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 132–138 | Cite as

A systematic review of the clinical and economic impact of drug information services on patient outcome

  • David Hands
  • Martin Stephens
  • David Brown
Article

Abstract

Aim: to establish what is known about the clinical and economic impact of drug information (DI) services on patient outcome. Method: a systematic review and critical appraisal of world literature on work conducted by Drug Information Centres and UK Schools of Pharmacy.Results: six relevant published articles were recovered – three from the UK, two from the US and one from Canada; just one was prospective in design. Four were single-centre and two were multi-centre studies. Four studies relied heavily on questionnaire surveys of the enquirer to establish an effect; only one monitored patient outcome independently and used peer review to assess impact.Conclusion: the clinical and economic impact of drug information consultation and provision on patient care has not been investigated rigorously. A research methodology for such an investigation is suggested.

Cost Cost savings Drug information services Medicines information Patient outcome Review Treatment outcome 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hands DE, Judd A, Golightly P, Grant E. Drug information and advisory services-past, present and future. Pharm J 1999;262:160-2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    UK Drug Information Pharmacist Group Quality Assurance Programmes. UK Drug Information Manual (4th ed) UKDIPG, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hands DE. Quality Assurance Programme for South and West Drug Information Centre (Southampton). Assessment of the Drug Information Service by Users, April 1999 and October 1999, Internal report.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adams P. Evaluation of Welsh Drug Information Services. PhD Thesis, University of Wales 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sklar G. Quality Assurance Program for Drug Information Centre. Pharmacotherapy 1999;19(4):507.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joshi MP. University hospital based drug information service in a developing country. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997;53:89-94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rozek SL, Santora JA. Assessment of physician satisfaction with drug information services. Proceedings of the ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting 1994;29:406.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sketris IS, Bishop A, Somers E, Baker GR. Developing a quality assurance programme for drug information requests answered by drug information pharmacists. Drug Inf J 1989;23(1):327-34.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baker RP, Gallo GR. Drug information services: how health care professionals use the information provided. J Clin Hosp Pharm 1984;9:133-8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stubbington C, Bowey J, Hands D, Brown D. Drug Information replies to queries involving adverse events: impact on clinical practice. Hosp Pharm 1998;5:81-4.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Najabat M, Bowey J, Hands D, Brown D. Drug information and patient care. Pharm World Sci 1999;21(1) Suppl.:A8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bond CA, Raehl CL, Franke T. Clinical pharmacy services and hospital mortality rates. Pharmacotherapy 1999;19:556-64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cardoni AA, Thompson TJ. Impact of drug information services on patient care. Am J Hosp Pharm 1978;35:1233-37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Melnyk PS, Shevchuk YM, Remillard AJ. Impact of the Dial Access Information Service on patient outcome. Ann Pharmacother 2000;34:585-92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Drolet D, Repchinsky C. Assessing the impact of drug information services of patient outcomes. Ottawa Valley DI Service, Canada, personal communication, 18 October 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yousef SH. Evaluation and cost control of the Welsh Drug Information Centre. MPhil thesis, University of Wales, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hermann FF, Wanke LA. Analysis and control of costs associated with answering drug information requests. Drug Inf J 1987;21:209-16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kinky DE, Erush SC, Laskin MS, Gibson GA. Economic impact of a drug information service. Ann Pharmacother 1999;33:11-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gill PS, Makela KM, Vermulen N., Freemantle G, Ryan C, Bond C et al. Changing doctor prescribing behaviour. Pharm World Sci 1999;21(4):158-67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGettigan P, Golden J, Fryer J, Chan R, Feely J. Presrcibers prefer people: the sources of information used by doctors for prescribing suggest that the medium is more important than the message. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001;51(2):184-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clark JC, Gerrett D. General medical practitioners' perceived use of drug information sources with special reference to drug information centres. Int J Pharm Pract 1994;2(4):247-52.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wagner MM, Hogan WR. The accuracy of medication data in an outpatient electronic medical record. J Am Med Inf Assoc 1996;3(3):234-44.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Duggan C, Bates I, Hough J. Discrepancies in prescribing-where do they occur? Pharm J 1996;256:65-7.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lannigan NA. Screening for pharmaceutical care issues on a general surgical unit. Pharm J 1994;252:134-5.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith F. Evaluation of Pharmaceutical Services: (1) Objectives, designs and frameworks. Int J Pharm Pract 1997:113-27.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Diwan VK, Eriksson B, Sterky G, Thomson G. Randomising by group in studying the effect of drug information in primary care. Int J Epidemiol 1992;21:124-30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Foppe van Mil. Assessing the impact of drug information on hospital and community care. European Society of Clinical Pharmacy Special Interest Group for Drug Information-mini symposium during ACCP-ESCP Conference, Orlando, 11 April 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tugwell C. Assessing the impact of drug information to professionals on patients in community and hospital. European Society of Clinical Pharmacy Special Interest Group for Drug Information-mini symposium during ACCP-ESCP Conference, Orlando, 11 April 1999.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tully M, Cantrill JA. Subjective outcome measurement-a primer. Pharm World Sci 1999;21(3):101-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Batty KT. Measuring our clinical output. Hosp Pharm Pract 1993;3(11):561-4.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hatoum HJ, Hutchinson R, Witte K, Newby GP. Evaluation on the contribution of clinical pharmacists: inpatient care and cost reduction. Drug Intel Clin Pharm 1988;22:252-9.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hawkey CJ, Hodgson S, Norman A, Daneshmend TK, Garner ST. Effect of reactive pharmacy intervention on quality of hospital prescribing. Br Med J 1990;300:986-90.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eadon H. Assessing the quality of ward pharmacists' interventions. Int J Pharm Pract 1992; 1:145-7.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Malek M. Pharmacoeconomics: (1) Introduction. Pharm J 1996; 23:759-61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Hands
    • 1
  • Martin Stephens
    • 2
  • David Brown
    • 3
  1. 1.South and West Drug Information CentreSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Southampton University HospitalsNHS TrustUK
  3. 3.School of PharmacyUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouth, HampshireUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options