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


METHODS
23 Norwegian community pharmacies.


METHODS
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.
Granas
Anne Gerd
AG
Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Centre for Pharmacy, University of Bergen, Kalfarveien 31, 5018, Bergen, Norway. anne.granas@isf.uib.no
Berg
Christian
C
Hjellvik
Vidar
V
Haukereid
Cecilie
C
Kronstad
Arvid
A
Blix
Hege S
HS
Kilhovd
Bente
B
Viktil
Kirsten K
KK
Horn
Anne Marie
AM
D000368:Aged; D003157:Community Pharmacy Services / Q000592:standards; D003924:Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000453:epidemiology; D017723:Drug Utilization Review / Q000145:classification* / Q000592:standards*; D064420:Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions / Q000145:classification*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010595:Pharmacists / Q000592:standards*
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Nov;60(9):651-8
15568140
QJM. 2006 Nov;99(11):797-800
17030528
Pharm World Sci. 2006 Aug;28(4):181-8
17066245
JAMA. 2001 Sep 12;286(10):1195-200
11559264
Med Care. 1991 Oct;29(10):989-1003
1921531
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2009 Sep 24;129(18):1846-9
19844274
Pharm World Sci. 2004 Feb;26(1):18-25
15018255
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2006 Jan 26;126(3):296-8
16440032
Am J Pharm Educ. 2009 May 27;73(3):52
19564995
Ann Pharmacother. 2004 May;38(5):859-67
15054145
Pharm World Sci. 2008 Apr;30(2):191-8
17891470
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2005 Jan-Feb;45(1):33-40
15730115
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007 Nov 29;127(23):3073-6
18049498
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006 Sep;15(9):667-74
16598835
Fam Pract. 1999 Jun;16(3):278-82
10439982
Pharmacotherapy. 2001 Aug;21(8):988-97
11718502
Pharm World Sci. 2006 Aug;28(4):239-47
17066246
Clin Ther. 2005 Jul;27(7):1104-11
16154490
Ann Pharmacother. 2007 Oct;41(10):1569-82
17712043
Pharm World Sci. 2009 Oct;31(5):580-595
19626455
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2006 Oct;31(5):409-19
16958818
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Jun;12(3):176-80
12792006
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2010 Mar;6(1):6-17
20188324
BMJ. 2000 Feb 19;320(7233):484-8
10678863
Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2004 Mar;2(1):3-13
15555474