International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 674–682 | Cite as

Drug-related problems in Parkinson’s disease: the role of community pharmacists in primary care

  • Sabrina SchröderEmail author
  • Peter Martus
  • Per Odin
  • Marion Schaefer
Research Article


Objective Although Parkinson’s disease is a common disorder in the elderly, there have been very few studies of the role of the pharmaceutical care services in detecting and reducing problems associated with drug treatment in community settings. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the type and frequency of drug-related problems identified in patients with Parkinson’s disease by community pharmacists over an 8-month period and to assess the pharmaceutical service interventions, the type and frequency of intervention outcomes and the clinical benefits for the patients. Setting Community pharmacies in Germany. Method Thirty-two community pharmacists recruited 113 outpatients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease who were receiving anti-Parkinsonian medication. Main outcome measure Drug-related problems. Results A total of 331 drug-related problems were identified by the pharmacists. Patients not receiving a medication, despite the presence of an indication or symptom, accounted for the highest proportion of drug-related problems (26.3%). The pharmacists proposed a total of 474 interventions, the most common of which was giving the patient treatment advice (19.6%). Intervention outcomes were recorded for 215 of the 331 drug-related problems, for which there were 553 individual outcome results. Adjustments of the drug regimen accounted for the highest percentage of individual results (43.6%). Conclusion Structured pharmaceutical care processes by community pharmacists have the potential to make a valuable contribution to health care and enhance the health outcomes of patients with Parkinson’s disease.


Community pharmacist Drug-related problems Germany Parkinson’s disease Pharmaceutical care 



The authors would also like to thank: the 32 study pharmacists for participation in the study; the 32 neurologists for participation in a survey on DRPs and unmet medical needs in Parkinson’s disease; and the members of the expert panel for the assessment of the clinical significance of DRPs and the seriousness and unexpectedness of adverse events; and Jane Irons and Mark Hickery for their assistance in editing the final manuscript.


The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Solvay Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Hanover, Germany.

Conflicts of interests

None of the authors has any declarable conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    van Mil JWF. Proceedings of the international workings conference on outcomes measurement in pharmaceutical care 9. Pharmaceutical care network Europe (PCNE). Hilleroed, Denmark; 1999. p. 84.
  2. 2.
    Lipton HL, Bero LA, Bird JA, McPhee SJ. The impact of clinical pharmacists’ consultations on physicians’ geriatric drug prescribing. A randomized controlled trial. Med Care. 1992;30:646–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldstein R, Hulme H, Willits J. Reviewing repeat prescribing—general practitioners and community pharmacists working together. Int J Pharm Pract. 1998;6:60–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Munroe WP, Kunz K, Dalmady-Israel C, Potter L, Schonfeld WH. Economic evaluation of pharmacist involvement in disease management in a community pharmacy setting. Clin Ther. 1997;19:113–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scottish Department of Health Clinical Resource and Audit Group. Clinical pharmacy practice in primary care. Edinburgh: Scottish Office; 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: updating the cost-of-illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 2001;41:192–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gandhi TK, Seger DL, Bates DW. Identifying drug safety issues: from research to practice. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;12:69–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Mil JW, Dudok van Heel MC, Boersma M, Tromp TF. Interventions and documentation for drug-related problems in Dutch community pharmacies. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001;58:1428–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paulino EI, Bouvy ML, Gastelurrutia MA, Guerreiro M, Buurma H. Drug related problems identified by European community pharmacists in patients discharged from hospital. Pharm World Sci. 2004;26:353–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Westerlund LT, Marklund BR, Handl WH, Thunberg ME, Allebeck P. Nonprescription drug-related problems and pharmacy interventions. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35:1343–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hubert MA, Mayer R, Müller CE. Parkinson-Therapeutika. Teil II: Wirkstoff-Dossiers, Therapiekonzepte und pharmazeutische Betreuung. Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung. 2002;39:62–71.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jameson JP, Van Noord GR. Pharmacotherapy consultation on polypharmacy patients in ambulatory care. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35:835–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cunningham G, Dodd TR, Grant DJ, McMurdo ME, Richards RM. Drug-related problems in elderly patients admitted to Tayside hospitals, methods for prevention and subsequent reassessment. Age Ageing. 1997;26:375–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leoni O, Martignoni E, Cosentino M, Michielotto D, Calandrella D, Zangaglia R, Riboldazzi G, Oria C, Lecchini S, Nappi G, Frigo G. Drug prescribing patterns in Parkinson’s disease: a pharmacoepidemiological survey in a cohort of ambulatory patients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11:149–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schröder S, Zöllner YF, Schaefer M. Drug related problems with Antiparkinsonian agents: consumer Internet reports versus published data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:1161–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kooperationsvereinbarung zwischen der BEK und dem DAV. Vereinbarung zwischen der Barmer Ersatzkasse (BEK) und dem Deutschen Apothekerverband e.V. (DAV) zur Intensivierung der Kooperation bei der qualitätsorientierten Versorgung der Versicherten. 2003.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schaefer M, Schulz M. Manuale zur Pharmazeutischen Betreuung. Band 1, Grundlagen der Pharmazeutischen Betreuung. Govi-Verlag; 2000. p 24.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Himstedt S, Kirchhoff G. Hausapotheke: Pharmazeutische Dienstleistung für die Patienten. Pharm Ztg. 2004. 19/44.; cited June 10 2005.
  20. 20.
    Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kilford L, Lees AJ. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 1992;55:181–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression, and mortality. Neurology. 1967;17:427–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, Greenhall R, Hyman N. The PDQ-8: development of a short form Parkinson’s disease questionnaire. Psychol Health. 1997;12:805–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ATC-Index. Anatomisch-therapeutisch-chemische-Klassifikation mit Tagesdosen. Amtliche Fassung des ATC-Index mit DDD-Angaben für Deutschland im Jahr 2005. Status: 1 January 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Mil JWF, Westerlund T, Hersberger KE, Schaefer M. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:859–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Mattenklotz A. Vergleichende Validierung von zwei Klassifizierungssystemen für arzneimittelbezogene Probleme (PCNE und PiDoc). Master thesis, Charité—University Medicine Berlin; 2006.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Viktil KK, Blix SH, Moger TA, Reikvam A. Interview of patients by pharmacists contributes significantly to the identification of drug-related problems (DRPs). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:667–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    WHO Adverse Drug Reaction Dictionary. The WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology WHO-ART. Terminology for coding clinical information in relation to drug therapy (December 2005).
  30. 30.
    CIOMS Working Group IV. Benefit-risk balance for marketing drugs: safety signals. Geneva: CIOMS; 1998.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    EMEA. Note for guidance on clinical safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting. June 1995—CPMP/ICH/377/95.
  32. 32.
    Grosset D, Antonini A, Canesi M, Pezzoli G, Lees A, Shaw K, Cubo E, Martinez-Martin P, Rascol O, Negre-Pages L, Senard A, Schwarz J, Strecker K, Reichmann H, Storch A, Löhle M, Stocchi F, Grosset K. Adherence to antiparkinson medication in a multicenter European study. Mov Disord. 2009;24:826–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rascol O, Payoux P, Ory F, Ferreira JJ, Brefel-Courbon C, Montastruc JL. Limitations of current Parkinson’s disease therapy. Ann Neurol. 2003;53(Suppl 3):3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rascol O, Goetz C, Koller W, Poewe W, Sampaio C. Treatment interventions for Parkinson’s disease: an evidence based assessment. Lancet. 2002;359:1589–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Buurma H, De Smet PA, Leufkens HGM, Egberts AC. Evaluation of the clinical value of pharmacists’ modification of prescription errors. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58:503–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chaudhuri KR, Schapira AH. Non-motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease: dopaminergic pathophysiology and treatment. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:464–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rupp MT. Value of community pharmacists’ interventions to correct prescribing errors. Ann Pharmacother. 1992;26:1580–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Viktil KK, Blix HS, Reikvam A, Moger TA, Hjemaas BJ, Walseth EK, Vraalsen TF, Pretsch P, Jorgensen F. Comparison of drug related-problems in different patient groups. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:942–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabrina Schröder
    • 4
    Email author
  • Peter Martus
    • 1
  • Per Odin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marion Schaefer
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute for Biostatistics and Clinical EpidemiologyCharité University Medicine, CCMBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyUniversity HospitalLundSweden
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyCentral HospitalBremerhavenGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Clinical PharmacologyCharité University Medicine, CCMBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations