Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 699–709 | Cite as

Preventable drug-related morbidity in community pharmacy: development and piloting of a complex intervention

  • Mara Pereira GuerreiroEmail author
  • Ana Paula Martins
  • Judith Anne Cantrill
Research Article

Abstract

Background Preventable drug-related morbidity (PDRM) arising in the community is a problem of unacceptable magnitude. Effective interventions to reduce this problem will avoid unnecessary patient harm and waste of resources for the health care system. Objective To develop and pilot an intervention to manage the risk of PDRM in community pharmacy, underpinned by validated PDRM indicators. Setting Portuguese community pharmacy. Method Our work was informed by the Medical Research Council framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. Human error theory was considered as a theoretical framework for developing the intervention. Additionally, this stage consisted of a literature review, followed by two focus groups (17 community pharmacists) and interviews with 8 professional leaders. A 4-component intervention, was developed: (1) operationalisation of 4 validated PDRM indicators in dispensing encounters (‘dispensing’ indicators), and operationalisation of 25 validated indicators in patients enrolled in pharmaceutical care programmes (‘follow-up’ indicators), (2) pharmacist resource pack, (3) pharmacists’ training and (4) support scheme. Piloting consisted of a feasibility study in 15 community pharmacies and an acceptability study with participating pharmacists (n = 16). Main outcome measures Proportion of cases with counselling (dispensing indicators); proportion of cases assessable, proportion of cases at risk and proportion of cases with risk minimisation actions (follow-up indicators). Results Operationalization of dispensing indicators resulted in counselling in 44.1 % of cases (n = 666). Factors influencing acceptability included pharmacists’ perceptions of patients’ characteristics, interest and informational needs, as well as perceptions on the relevance of safety information. For follow-up indicators, data were available to assess most cases (93/105, 88.6 %). About half of the assessable cases were at risk of a PDRM event (n = 49; 51.6 %); pharmacists undertook risk minimization actions in 23 cases (46.9 %). Lack of time and inter-professional issues emerged as important factors influencing acceptability. Conclusions A novel risk management intervention was developed. Feasibility and acceptability of the 4-component intervention in Portuguese community pharmacy provided ‘proof of concept’, whilst highlighting aspects that need further refinement to better measure and maximise efficacy in future evaluative research.

Keywords

Community pharmacy Indicators Patient safety Portugal Preventable drug-related morbidity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The list of people that contributed to this research over the course of almost 4 years is very long, which makes it impossible to name them. We are, however, deeply grateful for their contribution to the execution of the work. A special thank you goes to research participants, without whom this would not have been possible. Community pharmacies in the feasibility study accommodated study requirements throughout 8 months, which is especially commendable.

Funding

This work was supported by The University of Manchester (UK) as part of a PhD programme and the Centre for Health Evaluation & Research, National Association of Pharmacies group (Portugal).

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Goettler M, Schneeweiss S, Hasford J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring—cost and benefit considerations. Part II: cost and preventability of adverse drug reactions leading to hospital admission. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1997;6(Suppl 3):S79–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muehlberger N, Schneeweiss S, Hasford J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring—cost and benefit considerations. Part I: frequency of adverse drug reactions causing hospital admissions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1997;6(Suppl 3):S71–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beijer HJM, De Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24(2):46–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alonso HP, Otero Lopez MJ, Maderuelo Fernandez JA. Ingresos hospitalarios causados por medicamentos: incidencia, características y coste [Spanish: Drug-induced hospital admissions: Incidence, characteristics and cost]. Farm Hosp. 2002;26(2):77–89.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winterstein AG, Sauer BC, Hepler CD, Poole C. Preventable drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36(7–8):1238–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Howard RL, Avery AJ, Slavenburg S, Royal S, Pipe G, Lucassen P, et al. Which drugs cause preventable hospital admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;63(2):136–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MacKinnon NJ, Hepler CD. Preventable drug-related morbidity in older adults—1. Indicator development. JMCP. 2002;8(5):365–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    MacKinnon NJ, Hepler CD. Preventable drug-related morbidity in older adults—2. Use within a managed care organisation. JMCP. 2003;9(2):134–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sauer BC, Hepler CD, Cherney B, Williamson J. Computerized Indicators of Potential Drug-related Emergency Department and Hospital Admissions. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13:29–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morris CJ, Cantrill JA, Hepler CD, Noyce PR. Preventing drug-related morbidity—determining valid indicators. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14(3):183–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morris CJ, Cantrill JA. Preventing drug-related morbidity—the development of quality indicators. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2003;28(4):295–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hammersley VS, Morris CJ, Rodgers S, Cantrill JA, Avery AJ. Applying preventable drug-related morbidity indicators to the electronic patient record in UK primary care: methodological development. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2006;31(3):223–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morris CJ, Cantrill CA, Bates JR. How the use of preventable drug-related morbidity indicators can improve medicines management in primary care. Pharm J. 2003;271:682–6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morris CJ, Rodgers S, Hammersley VS, Avery AJ, Cantrill JA. Indicators for preventable drug related morbidity: application in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(3):181–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morris CJ, Cantrill JA, Avery AJ, Howard RL. Preventing drug related morbidity: a process for facilitating changes in practice. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(2):116–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robertson HA, MacKinnon NJ. Development of a list of consensus-approved clinical indicators of preventable drug-related morbidity in older adults. Clin Ther. 2002;24(10):1595–613.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flanagan PS, MacKinnon NJ, Bowles SK, Kirkland SA. Validation of four clinical indicators of preventable drug-related morbidity. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(1):20–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guerreiro MP, Cantrill JA, Martins AP. Preventable drug related morbidity—determining valid indicators for primary care in Portugal. Acta Med Port. 2007;20:107–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dago AM, Arcos PG, Álvarez de Toledo FS, Baena MIP, Martínez JO, Gorostiza IO. Indicadores de riesgo de morbilidad prevenible causada por medicamentos [Spanish: Indicators of preventable drug related morbidity]. Gac Sanit. 2007; 21(1):29–36.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gianino MM, Foti G, Borghese R, Lorelli S, Siliquini R, Renga G. Indicators for preventable drug-related morbidity. Practical application in home-based care. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17:501–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Medical Research Council. A framework for the development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London: MRC; 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haynes A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321:694–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watson MC. Using the Medical Research Council (UK) framework for the development and evaluation of randomised controlled trials for complex interventions to improve health [editorial]. Int J Pharm Pract. 2006;14:233–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wong ICK. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate complex healthcare interventions—a case study. Pharm World Sci. 2004;26:247–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320:768–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hepler CD, Segal R. Preventing medication errors and improving drug therapy outcomes. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beney J, Bero LA, Bond C. Expanding the roles of outpatient pharmacists: effects on health services utilisation, costs, and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000336.
  28. 28.
    Roberts A (ed.). Business and professional facilitators. University of Sydney. Final report, 2003.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tully MP, Seston EM, Cantrill JA. Motivators and barriers to the implementation of pharmacist-run prescription monitoring and review services in two settings. Int J Pharm Pract. 2000;8:188–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320:114–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paulino EI, Guerreiro MP, Cantrill JA, Martins AP, Costa FA, Benrimoj SI. Community pharmacists’ and physicians’ inter-professional work—insights from qualitative studies with multiple stakeholders. Rev Port Clin Geral. 2010;26:590–606.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Mitchie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:979–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martins AP, Miranda AC, Mendes Z, Soares MA, Ferreira P, Nogueira A. Self-medication in a Portuguese urban population: a prevalence study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11:409–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hughes CM, McCann S. Perceived interprofessional barriers between community pharmacists and general practitioners: a qualitative assessment. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53:600–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reebye RN, Avery A, Van Den Bosch WJHM, Aslam M, Nijholt A, Van Der Bij A. Exploring community pharmacists’ perceptions of their professional relationships with physicians, in Canada and The Netherlands. Int J Pharm Pract. 1999;7:158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Edmunds J, Calnan MW. The reprofessionalisation of community pharmacy? An exploration of attitudes to extended roles for community pharmacists amongst pharmacists and general practitioners in the United Kingdom. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53:943–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mara Pereira Guerreiro
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ana Paula Martins
    • 1
  • Judith Anne Cantrill
    • 3
  1. 1.iMED.ULFaculdade de Farmácia da Universidade de Lisboa (FFUL)LisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Instituto Superior de Ciências da Saúde Egas Moniz (ISCSEM)Monte da CaparicaPortugal
  3. 3.School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations