Drug-related problems in general practice: results from a development project in Denmark
- 172 Downloads
The objective of the study is identify and document drug-related problems and other possible quality problems in primary care through a pharmacist-run medication review and screening service. GPs’ acceptance and implementation rates of the pharmacist’s recommendations are evaluated.
A community pharmacist worked 20 h per week for 18 months in a GP practice with three GPs.
The pharmacist completed 40 reviews and identified 103 drug-related problems. GPs had a high rate of acceptance of the pharmacist’s suggested interventions (83%), and 77% of the recommendations had been implemented. 765 (12.5%) possible quality problems were identified after screening 6094 medical records. The physicians accepted 86% of the recommendations to initiate low dosage ASA and treatment was implemented for 63% of the patients. 76% of the recommendations to initiate Statin treatment were agreed on and 56% were implemented.
The pharmacist was able to identify drug-related problems and other possible quality problems with regard to quality assurance of individual patient’s drug treatment. The GPs accepted and implemented the pharmacist’s recommendations. It was feasible to implement the services and to establish well-functioning co-operation between the pharmacist and the GPs.
KeywordsCommunity pharmacist General practice Medication review Drug-related problems Acceptance rate Implementation rate Denmark
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
The study was financed by Apotekerfonden af 1991.
- 2.Teal S, Ricketts L, Belton A, Allsopp G, Silcock J, Wright DJ. How effective are pharmacists who work with medical practitioners? A study of interventions intended to influence prescribing. Int J Pharm Pract 2002; 10:185–190Google Scholar
- 3.Petty DR, Zermansky AG, Raynor DR, Lowe CR, Freemantle N, Vail A. Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients on repeat medication in general practice – pharmacists intervention and review outcomes. Int J Pharm Pract 2002; 10:39–45Google Scholar
- 4.Geogbegan M, Pilling M, Holden J, Wolfson D. A controlled evaluation of the effect of community pharmacists on general practitioner prescribing. Pharm J 1998; 261:864–866Google Scholar
- 5.Oxman AD, Thomson AM, Davis DA, Hayes RB. No magic bullets. Can Med Assoc J 1995; 153:1423–1431Google Scholar
- 7.Sellor J, Kaczorowski J, Sellors C, Dolovich L, Woodward C, Willian A. A randomized controlled trial of a pharmacist consultation program for family physicians and their elderly patients. CMAJ 2003; 169(1):17–22Google Scholar
- 9.Grymonpre RE, Willianson DA, Montgomery PR. Impact of a pharmaceutical care model for non-institutionalised elderly: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Int J Pharm Pract 2001; 9:235–241Google Scholar
- 10.Kassam R, Farris KB, Burback L, Volume CI, Cox EC, Cave A. Pharmaceutical care research and education project: pharmacists’ intervention. J Am Pharm Assoc 2001; 41:401–410Google Scholar