Background Drug-related problems (DRPs) can have an important impact on the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy. In Germany, the frequency of DRPs in prescribed medicines in ambulatory care is not yet known. Objective To quantify DRPs in prescribed medicines identified by community pharmacists (CPs) at the time the medicine is dispensed. Setting German CPs in four different regions. Method We invited CPs to document one hundred consecutive patients presenting prescriptions using a standardized documentation form. For each patient, person- and medication-related as well as identified DRP-related data were documented. Data were transcribed electronically, coded if necessary, checked for validity, and analyzed. Main outcome measure Nature and frequency of DRPs. Results In total, 143 CPs documented 14,231 patients with 24,422 prescribed drugs and identified DRPs in 2,556 patients (18.0 %). Analyses resulted in 0.23 DRPs per patient and 0.13 DRPs per prescribed medicine. Four DRPs were responsible for almost 70 % of all DRPs: Potential drug–drug interaction (22.9 %), dose not known to patient (21.7 %), patient insecure due to generic substitution (13.5 %), and insufficient patient knowledge of correct drug use (10.9 %). If a patient’s drug file was kept in the pharmacy, specific types of DRPs were detected more frequently e.g., drug–drug interactions (p < 0.001). Interventions primarily comprised counselling, monitoring, and changing drug or instructions for use. The prescribing physician was contacted in 28 % of DRPs resulting in a change of these prescriptions in 50 % of the cases. Overall and according to the pharmacists, more than 90 % of the DRPs detected were partially (10.4 %) or completely (85.4 %) solved. Conclusion We quantified DRPs in prescribed medicines in daily ambulatory care practice in Germany. When filling a prescription, in nearly 20 % of the patients relevant DRPs were revealed. According to the pharmacists, the majority could be partially or completely solved during the encounter at the pharmacy. Keeping a patient’s drug file including patient specific data may facilitate the detection of DRPs and shall, therefore, be offered to patients more often.
Community pharmacy Drug-related problems Drug safety Germany Pharmacy
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank all participating community pharmacists for making this piece of research possible, Christiane Sauerwein for generating the database and data analyses, and Susanne vom Scheidt, both from the Department of Medicine at ABDA, Berlin, for supporting study organization and critical reading of the manuscript.
This study was funded by ABDA—Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists, Berlin, Germany.
Beijer HJ, de Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24:46–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279:1200–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, Begaud B. Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: cross sectional incidence study. French pharmacovigilance centres. BMJ. 2000;320:1036.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerlund T, Marklund B. Assessment of the clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacy interventions in drug-related problems. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2009;34:319–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winterstein AG, Sauer BC, Hepler CD, Poole C. Preventable drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36:1238–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson JA, Bootman JL. Drug-related morbidity and mortality. A cost-of-illness model. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:1949–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Eichenberger PM, Lampert ML, Kahmann IV, van Mil JW, Hersberger KE. Classification of drug-related problems with new prescriptions using a modified PCNE classification system. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32:362–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hämmerlein A, Griese N, Schulz M. Survey of drug-related problems identified by community pharmacies. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41:1825–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewinski D, Wind S, Belgardt C, Plate V, Behles C, Schweim HG. Prevalence and safety-relevance of drug-related problems in German community pharmacies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:141–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Westerlund T, Almarsdottir AB, Melander A. Drug-related problems and pharmacy interventions in community practice. Int J Pharm Pract. 1999;7:40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eickhoff C, Schulz M. Pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies: practice and research in Germany. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:729–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eickhoff C, Hämmerlein A, Griese N, Schulz M. Nature and frequency of drug-related problems in self-medication (over-the-counter drugs) in daily community pharmacy practice in Germany. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:254–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
ABDA—Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Apothekerverbände. Leitfaden “Beratung in der Apotheke”; 2010.Google Scholar
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. Oslo; 2003.Google Scholar
ABDATA Pharma-Daten-Service. ABDA-Datenbank [computer program]. Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft Deutscher Apotheker mbH. Germany: Eschborn; 2010.Google Scholar
Ax F, Branstad J-O, Westerlund T. Pharmacy counselling models: a means to improve drug use. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2010;35:439–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Benrimoj SI, Langford JH, Berry G, Collins D, Lauchlan R, Stewart K, et al. Clinical intervention rates in community pharmacy: a randomised trial of the effect of education and a professional allowance. Int J Pharm Pract. 2003;11:71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poston J, Kennedy R, Waruszynski B. Initial results from the community pharmacist intervention study. Can Pharm J. 1995;127:18–24.Google Scholar
Rupp MT, DeYoung M, Schondelmeyer SW. Prescribing problems and pharmacist interventions in community practice. Med Care. 1992;30:926–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Andersson AC, Brodin H, Nilsson JLG. Pharmacist interventions in relation to patient drug-related problems. J Soc Adm Pharm. 2003;20:82–91.Google Scholar
Buurma H, De Smet PA, van den Hoff OP, Egberts AC. Nature, frequency and determinants of prescription modifications in Dutch community pharmacies. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;52:85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawksworth GM, Corlett AJ, Wright DJ, Chrystyn H. Clinical pharmacy interventions by community pharmacists during the dispensing process. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;47:695–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leemans L, Veroeveren L, Bulens J, Hendrickx C, Keyenberg W, Niesten F, et al. Frequency and trends of interventions of prescriptions in Flemish community pharmacies. Pharm World Sci. 2003;25:65–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westein MP, Herings RM, Leufkens HG. Determinants of pharmacists’ interventions linked to prescription processing. Pharm World Sci. 2001;23:98–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar