Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 328–332 | Cite as

Communicating with patients the second time they present their prescription at the pharmacy Discovering patients’ drug-related problems

  • J.G. HugtenburgEmail author
  • A.Th.G. Blom
  • C.T.W. Gopie
  • J.J. Beckeringh
Article

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effect of a short inquiry the second time that the prescription was presented at the pharmacy (SP) counter on the detection of drug related-problems as perceived by patients in a community pharmacy. The implementation of the SP procedure is also described.

Method: At SP patients were asked to give a short description of their experience with their newly prescribed drug. Patients’ drug-related problems were recorded on a SP form and were categorised into three groups: side effects, inefficacy, and problems with use or instruction. Data were also matched with drug categories. The ATC classification was used. A comparison with a control pharmacy was made.

Main outcome measures: Drug experience, patients’ drug-related problems, side effects, inefficacy, problems with the use or instruction.

Results: Data from 700 SP forms showed that in 78% of cases patients did not have problems with the use of their new drugs. In the remainder of cases (22%), drug- related problems mainly concerned side effects (49%; 76 out of 156) and complaints about the drugs not being as effective as expected (inefficacy: 49%; 77 out of 156). In the control pharmacy no drug-related problems were detected in 30 SP contacts. Patients using gastrointestinal drugs reported fewer side effects than patients using cardiovascular drugs. Patients using respiratory drugs reported more often that the drug was not effective than patients using cardiovascular drugs.

Conclusion: It was concluded that the SP procedure encourages patients to report their drug problems at the counter in the pharmacy.

Community pharmacy Drug-related problem Ineffectiveness Patient counselling Repeat prescription Second prescription Side effect The Netherlands 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Herborg DK, Tully Mp, Hassell K, Noyce PR. Advice giving in community pharmacy in the UK. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 38–50.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Airaksinen M, Ahonen R, Enlund H. The ‘questions to ask about your medicines’ campaign. An evaluation of pharmacists’ and the public’s response. Med Care 1998; 36: 422–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernsten C, Bjorkman I, Caramona M, Crealey G, Frokjaer B, Grundberger E et al. Improving the well-being of elderly patients via community pharmacy-based provision of pharmaceutical care: a multicentre study in seven European countries. Drugs Aging 2001; 18: 63–77.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weinberger M, Murray MD, Marrero DG, Brewer N, Lykens M, Harris LE et al. Effectiveness of pharmacist care for patients with reactive airways disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288: 1594–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pronk M, Blom L, Jonkers R, Rogers EM, Bakker A, De Blaey KJ. Patient oriented activities in Dutch community pharmacy: diffusion of innovations. Pharm World Sci 2002; 24: 154–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Gier J. Clinical pharmacy in primary care and community pharmacy. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20: 2785–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hawksworth GM, Corlett AJ, Wright DJ, Chrystyn H. Clinical pharmacy interventions by community pharmacists during the dispensing process. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 47: 695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buurma H, De Smet PAGM, Van den Hoff OP, Egberts ACG. Nature, frequency and determinants of prescription modifications in Dutch community pharmacies. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 52: 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Westein MPD, Herings RMC, Leufkens HGM. Determinants of pharmacists’s interventions linked to prescription processing. Pharm World Sci 2001; 23: 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cancrinus-Matthijsse A. Tussen hulpverlening en ondernemerschap. Beroepsuitoefening en taakopvattingen van openbare apothekers in een aantal West-Europese landen [Professional practice and task conceptions of community pharmacists in a number of Western European countries.] [Dissertation]. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haynes RB, Mc Donald HP, Garg AXG. Helping patients follow prescribed treatment. JAMA 2002; 288: 2880–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herings RMC, Leufkens HGM, Heerdink ER, Klungel OH, Breekveld-Postma NP. Chronische therapie voortgezet. [Chronical Therapy Continued]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Pharmo Instituut, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hughes DA, Bagust A, Haycox A, Walley T. The impact of non-compliance on the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2001; 10: 601–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bond C, Matheson C, Williams S, Williams P, Donnan P. Repeat prescribing: a role for community pharmacists in controlling and monitoring repeat prescriptions. Br J Gen Pract 2000; 50: 271–5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Westerlund T, Almarsdottir AB, Melander A. Factors influencing the detection rate of drug-related problems in community pharmacy. Pharm World Sci 1999; 21: 245–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Westerlund T, Almarsdottir AB, Melander A. Drug-related problems and pharmacy interventions in community practice. Int J Pharm Pract 1999; 7: 40–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.G. Hugtenburg
    • 1
    Email author
  • A.Th.G. Blom
    • 1
  • C.T.W. Gopie
    • 1
  • J.J. Beckeringh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacoepidemiology & Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Westwijk PharmacyAmstelveenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations