Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 167–172 | Cite as

German national drug information service: user satisfaction and potential positive patient outcomes

  • Thilo Bertsche
  • Andrea Hämmerlein
  • Martin SchulzEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Objective

The pharmacist-run national German drug information service (DIS) has operated since 1988. Answering a steadily increasing demand over the past decade, our centre has, in total, provided information in more than 14,000 cases, mainly for community pharmacists. Information on user’s satisfaction and on possible direct or indirect benefits for patients is as yet scarce. Our objectives were to assess user’s satisfaction with the DIS and to identify any patient-related benefits based on the user’s judgment.

Setting

Independent national drug information centre at ABDA headquarters.

Method

A questionnaire was developed, pre-tested, optimized, and used in daily practice over a period of one year (09/2003–08/2004). The questionnaire comprised seven items, aimed only at inquiries which pertained to a patient-related issue.

Results

During the study period, a total of 1,639 inquiries were answered. Of these, 1,017 (62%) were eligible. The response rate was 45% (455/1,017). Ratings (1 = poor to 5 = very good, mean  ±  SD) showed positive evaluations for professional quality of advice␣(4.7 ± 0.5), clarity/understandability of advice (4.7 ± 0.5), timeliness of response (4.6 ± 0.7), and helpfulness regarding counselling patients and/or physicians (4.6 ± 0.6). Potential patient benefits could be identified in 42% of the cases that were available to follow-up (190/455).

Conclusion

This evaluation showed high satisfaction among users of a nationwide DIS, based on quality, understandability, timeliness, and helpfulness regarding counselling. According to its users, DIS was also able to provide positive patient outcomes.

Keywords

Drug information Evaluation Germany Guideline Patient outcomes Pharmacy practice Quality Questionnaire Satisfaction Survey 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank our colleagues in the Centre for Drug Information and Pharmacy Practice (ZAPP), Margit Schmidt, Ralf Goebel Ph.D., Christiane Sauerwein, Susanne Roth, Nina Griese Ph.D., Karin Berger MPH, Christiane Eickhoff Ph.D., Uta Müller Ph.D. MPH, and Susanne vom Scheidt, for their ongoing and unrestricted support.

References

  1. 1.
    American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP guidelines on the provision of medication information by␣pharmacists. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 1996;53:1843–5. http://www.ashp.org/bestpractices/medtherapy/Specific_Gdl_MedInfo.pdf (last accessed November 22, 2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Melnyk PS, Shevchuk YM, Remillard AJ. Impact of the dial access drug information service on patient outcome. Ann Pharmacother 2000;34:585–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenhalgh T, Hughes J, Humphrey C, Rogers S, Swinglehurst D, Martin P. A comparative case study of two models of a clinical informaticist service. Br Med J 2002;324:524–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bond CA, Raehl CL, Franke T. Clinical pharmacy services, pharmacy staffing, and the total cost of care in United States hospitals. Pharmacotherapy 2000;20:609–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bond CA, Raehl CL, Franke T. Clinical pharmacy services and hospital mortality rates. Pharmacotherapy 1999;19:556–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spinewine A, Dean B. Measuring the impact of medicines information services on patient care: methodological considerations. Pharm World Sci 2002;24:177–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schulz M. Drug infomation centers in Europe. Ann Pharmacother 1992;26:1158PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Repchinsky CA, Masuhara EJ. Quality assurance program for a drug information center. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1987;21:816–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith F. Research methods in pharmacy practice. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 2002Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson N, Dupuis LL. A quality assurance audit of a drug information service. Can J Hosp Pharm 1989;42:57–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tierney M, Godbout L, Repchinsky C. A peer review quality assurance program in drug information. Can J Hosp Pharm 1991;44:31–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woodward CT, Stevenson JG, Poremba A. Assessing the quality of pharmacist answers to telephone drug information questions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990;47:798–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thompson DF, Heflin NR. Quality assurance in drug information and poison centers: a review. Hosp Pharm 1985;20:758–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hands D, Stephens M, Brown D. A systematic review of the clinical and economic impact of drug information services on patient outcome. Pharm World Sci 2002;24:132–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Litzinger A, Schweitzer E. Neue Wege einer intensivierten pharmazeutischen Betreuung. [New approaches of intensified pharmaceutical care.]. Krankenhauspharmazie 1998;19:9–13Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schuffels GT, Meek PD, Ploetz PA, Vermeulen LC. Optimierung der Arzneimitteltherapie im Krankenhaus [Optimization of drug therapy in the hospital setting]. Krankenhauspharmazie 1990;11:402–5Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cardoni AA, Thompson TJ. Impact of drug information services on patient care. Am J Hosp Pharm 1978;35:1233–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eickhoff C, Schulz M. Pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies: practice and research in Germany. Ann Pharmacother 2006;40:729–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thilo Bertsche
    • 1
    • 3
  • Andrea Hämmerlein
    • 1
  • Martin Schulz
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Drug Information and Pharmacy Practice (ZAPP), ABDA—Federal Union of German Associations of PharmacistsBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute of PharmacologyJohann Wolfgang Goethe-UniversityFrankfurtGermany
  3. 3.Department of Internal Medicine VI, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Cooperation Unit Clinical Pharmacy (in cooperation with the hospital pharmacy)University Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations