Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluating categorisation and clinical relevance of drug-related problems in medication reviews

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Pharmacy World & Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives We aimed to evaluate the categorisation and clinical relevance of DRPs identified by community pharmacists, and further, to assess the quality of interventions with the patients and the physicians as documented by the pharmacists. Setting 23 Norwegian community pharmacies. Method Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited by 24 community pharmacists who performed structured medication reviews based on the patients’ drug profiles and patient interviews. The DRPs identified were subsequently categorised. An evaluation group (EG) retrospectively evaluated the reviews. Clinical/practical relevance of each DRP and quality of community pharmacists’ intervention with patients and physician were scored. Average agreement between the EG and the community pharmacists was calculated. Internal agreement in the EG was calculated using a modified version of Fleiss’ Kappa coefficient. Results A total of 73 patients were included (mean age 62 years, 52% female, on average prescribed 8.7 drugs). The pharmacists identified 88 DRPs in 43 of the patients. The most common DRPs were adverse drug reactions (22%) and wrong drug or dose used by patient (14%). Anti-diabetic drugs and lipid modifying drugs were associated with the most DRPs. The EG agreed with detection and categorisation of DRPs in more than 80% of the cases. The clinical/practical relevance of the detected DRPs was scored by the EG to be high or medium in 87% of the cases. The quality of the follow-up with patients and physicians was scored to be good or satisfactory in 93 and 98% of the cases, respectively. Conclusions Pre-defined categories of DRPs supported by structured forms were reliable and valid tools for identifying DRPs. The evaluation demonstrated that community pharmacists were able to identify DRPs of high to medium clinical/practical relevance, and to perform follow-ups of the DRPs with the patients and the physicians with a good or satisfactory quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Doucette WR, McDonough RP, Klepser D, McCarthy R. Comprehensive medication therapy management: identifying and resolving drug-related issues in a community pharmacy. Clin Ther. 2005;27(7):1104–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gray S, Woolfrey S, Copeland R, Gill D, Dennett G. Evaluating the potential impact of community pharmacy interventions on patient care in Northumberland. Qual Prim Care. 2004;12(1):47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lindenmeyer A, Hearnshaw H, Vermeire E, Van Royen P, Wens J, Biot Y. Interventions to improve adherence to medication in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review of the literature on the role of pharmacists. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2006;31(5):409–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Granas AG, Bates I. The effect of pharmaceutical review of repeat prescribing in general practice. Int J Pharm Pract. 1999;7(7):264–75.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Viktil KK, Blix HS, Moger TA, Reikvam A. Interview of patients by pharmacists contributes significantly to the identification of drug-related problems (DRPs). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15(9):667–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Mil JW, Westerlund LO, Hersberger KE, Schaefer MA. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(5):859–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ernst ME, Doucette WR, Dedhiya SD, Osterhaus MC, Kumbera PA, Osterhaus JT, et al. Use of point-of-service health status assessments by community pharmacists to identify and resolve drug-related problems in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Pharmacother. 2001;21(8):988–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ruths S, Straand J, Nygaard HA. Multidisciplinary medication review in nursing home residents: what are the most significant drug-related problems? The Bergen District Nursing Home (BEDNURS) study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(3):176–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Blix HS, Viktil KK, Reikvam A, Moger TA, Hjemaas BJ, Pretsch P, et al. The majority of hospitalised patients have drug-related problems: results from a prospective study in general hospitals. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;60(9):651–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hanlon JT, Lindblad CI, Gray SL. Can clinical pharmacy services have a positive impact on drug-related problems and health outcomes in community-based older adults? Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2004;2(1):3–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Krass I, Taylor SJ, Smith C, Armour CL. Impact on medication use and adherence of Australian pharmacists’ diabetes care services. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2005;45(1):33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mokdad AH, Bowman BA, Ford ES, Vinicor F, Marks JS, Koplan JP. The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States. JAMA. 2001;286(10):1195–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wermeille J, Bennie M, Brown I, McKnight J. Pharmaceutical care model for patients with type 2 diabetes: integration of the community pharmacist into the diabetes team–a pilot study. Pharm World Sci. 2004;26(1):18–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Haugbolle LS, Sorensen EW. Drug-related problems in patients with angina pectoris, type 2 diabetes and asthma—interviewing patients at home. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28(4):239–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Watson MC, Norris P, Granas AG. A systematic review of the use of simulated patients and pharmacy practice research. Int J Pharm Pract. 2006;14(2):83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. 2005. WHO Collaborating Centre, Oslo, Norway. http://www.whocc.no.

  17. Ruths S, Viktil KK, Blix HS. Classification of drug-related problems. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007;127(23):3073–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. A language and environment for statistical computing. R-project org. 2007. [cited 2008 Mar. 13]. http://www.R-project.org.

  19. Fleiss JL, Cuzick J. The reliability of dichotomous judgement: unequal number of judgements per subject. Appl Psychol Meas. 1979;3:537–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nathan A, Goodyer L, Lovejoy A, Rashid A. ‘Brown bag’ medication reviews as a means of optimizing patients’ use of medication and of identifying potential clinical problems. Fam Pract. 1999;16(3):278–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Britten N, Stevenson FA, Barry CA, Barber N, Bradley CP. Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study. BMJ. 2000;320(7233):484–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Machado M, Bajcar J, Guzzo GC, Einarson TR. Sensitivity of patient outcomes to pharmacist interventions. Part I: systematic review and meta-analysis in diabetes management. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(10):1569–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee SS, Schwemm AK, Reist J, Cantrell M, Andreski M, Doucette WR, et al. Pharmacists’ and pharmacy students’ ability to identify drug-related problems using TIMER (Tool to Improve Medications in the Elderly via Review). Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(3):52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kjome RL, Sandberg S, Granas AG. Diabetes care in Norwegian pharmacies: a descriptive study. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(2):191–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gorard DA. Escalating polypharmacy. QJM. 2006;99(11):797–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Haavik S, Horn AM, Mellbye KS, Kjonniksen I, Granas AG. Prescription errors—dimension and measures. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2006;126(3):296–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mandt I, Horn AM, Ekedahl A, Granas AG. Community pharmacists’ prescription intervention practices—exploring variations in practice in Norwegian pharmacies. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2010;6(1);6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mandt I, Horn AM, Granas AG. Communication about prescription interventions between pharmacists and general practitioners. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2009;129(18):1846–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. MacRae F, Lowrie R, Kinn S, Fish A. Patient views of pharmacist-led medication review clinics: a preliminary study. Int J Pharm Prac. 2003;11:R6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bero LA, Lipton HL, Bird JA. Characterization of geriatric drug-related hospital readmissions. Med Care. 1991;29(10):989–1003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Allenet B, Bedouch P, Rose FX, Escofier L, Roubille R, Charpiat B, et al. Validation of an instrument for the documentation of clinical pharmacists’ interventions. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28(4):181–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van Roozendaal BW, Krass I. Development of an evidence-based checklist for the detection of drug related problems in type 2 diabetes. Pharm World Sci. 2009;31(5):580–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Department of Postgraduate and Continuing Education, School of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, for organisational support.

Funding

The Norwegian Directorate of Health partially funded of the study.

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Gerd Granas.

Additional information

Anne Marie Horn—Deceased.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Granas, A.G., Berg, C., Hjellvik, V. et al. Evaluating categorisation and clinical relevance of drug-related problems in medication reviews. Pharm World Sci 32, 394–403 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-010-9385-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-010-9385-x

Keywords

Navigation