Aim To evaluate the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) classification system as a tool for documenting the impact of a hospital clinical pharmacology service. Setting Two medical wards comprising totally 85 beds in a university hospital. Main outcome measure Number of events classified with the PCNE-system, their acceptance by the medical staff and cost implications. Methods Clinical pharmacy review of pharmacotherapy on ward rounds and from case notes were documented, and identified drug-related problems (DRPs) were classified using the PCNE system version 5.00. Results During 70 observation days 216 interventions were registered of which 213 (98.6%) could be classified: 128 (60.1%) were detected by reviewing the case notes, 33 (15.5%) on ward rounds, 32 (15.0%) by direct reporting to the clinical pharmacist (CP), and 20 (9.4%) on non-formulary prescriptions. Of 148 suggested interventions by the CP 123 (83.0%) were approved by the responsible physician, 12 ADR reports (8.1%) were submitted to the local pharmacovigilance centre and 31 (20.9%) specific information given without further need for action. An evaluation of the DRPs showed that direct drug costs of €2,058 within the study period or €10,731 per year could be avoided. Conclusion We consider the PCNE system to be a practical tool in the hospital setting, which demonstrates the values of a clinical pharmacy service in terms of identifying and reducing DRPs and also has the potential to reduce prescribing costs.
Adverse drug events Adverse drug reactions Classification systems Clinical pharmacist Cost Drug-related problems Hospital care PCNE DRP classification Pharmaceutical interventions Switzerland
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We would like to thank Monika Gisin, RN and Kristian Schneider, RN for their support and interest in setting up a clinical pharmacy service. We would also like to thank Peter Hockey, MD for his critical review of the text.
There was no financial support for his study.
Conflicts of interest
There was no conflict of interest.
Krähenbühl-Melcher A, Schlienger R, Lampert M, Haschke M, Drewe J, Krähenbühl S. Drug related problems in hospitals—a review of the recent literature. Drug Saf. 2007;30:379–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlienger RG, Luescher TF, Schoenenberger RA, Haefeli WE. Academic detailing improves identification and reporting of adverse drug events. Pharm World Sci. 1999;3:110–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:161–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Schumock GT, Butler MG, Meek PD, Vermeulen LC, Arondekar BV, Bauman JL. 2002 Task force on economic evaluation of clinical pharmacy services of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23:113–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Mil F, Westerlund T, Hersberger KE, Schaefer MA. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:859–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allenet B, Bedouch P, Rose FX, et al. Validation of an instrument for the documentation of clinical pharmacists’ interventions. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28:181–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
AbuRuz SM, Bulatova NR, Yousef AM. Validation of a comprehensive classification tool for treatment related problems. Pharm Word Sci. 2006;28:222–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer M. Discussing basic principles for a coding system of drug-related problems: the case of PI-Doc. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24:120–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagler M, editor. Arzneimittelkompendium der Schweiz. 2007. 28th ed. (ISBN 3–85640–313–2), Basel: Documed; 2006.Google Scholar
Hatoum HT, Hutchinson RA, Elliott LR, Kendzierski DL. Physicians’ review of significant interventions by clinical pharmacists in inpatient care. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1988;22:980–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Dooley MJ, Allen KM, Doecke CJ, et al. A prospective multicentre study of pharmacist initiated changes to drug therapy and patient management in acute care government funded hospitals. Br J Clin Pharm. 2004;57:513–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overhage JM, Lukes A. Practical, reliable, comprehensive method for characterizing pharmacists’ clinical activities. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999;56:2444–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ganso M. Documentation and analysis of pharmaceutical interventions, 6. Konstanzer Apothekerkolloquium. 2006. (Oral Communication).Google Scholar
Klopfer JD, Einarson TR. Acceptance of pharmacists’ suggestions by prescribers: a literature review. Hosp Pharm. 1990;25:830–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Clapp MD et al. Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit. JAMA. 1999;282:267–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin ST, Hennenfelt JA, Bailey TC, et al. A prospective, randomized trial to assess the cost of pharmacist-initiated interventions. Arch Int Med. 1999;159:2306–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft Buck T, Brandstru L, Brandslund I, Kampmann JP. The effects of introducing a clinical pharmacist on orthopaedic wards in Denmark. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29:12–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruettimann S, Keck B, Hartmeier C, Maetzel A, Bucher HC. Long-term antibiotic cost savings from a comprehensive intervention program in a medical department of a university-affiliated teaching hospital. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:348–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bajcar J, Chin T, Chui W, Wichman K. Development of a comprehensive clinical pharmacy workload documentation system. Can J Hosp Pharm. 1995;48:80–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar