International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 368–376 | Cite as

Evaluation of a controlled, national collaboration study on a clinical pharmacy service of screening for risk medications

  • Lene Juel KjeldsenEmail author
  • Marianne Hald Clemmensen
  • Christian Kronborg
  • Ulla Hedegaard
  • Line Hedegaard Larsen
  • Inger Olsen Yderstræde
  • Jette Lyngholm Nielsen
  • Trine Rune Høgh Nielsen
Research Article


Background Risk medications are frequently associated with adverse events and hospitalisations. Objective To evaluate a risk medication screening service for in-patients at Danish hospitals. Setting Danish hospitals. Methods The study was designed as a controlled, prospective intervention study. Inpatients were screened for the use of five risk medications; anticoagulants, digoxin, methotrexate, NSAIDs and opioids, and during the intervention period recommendations were made by clinical pharmacists according to a standardized intervention scheme. The recommendations were discussed with the physician face-to-face. Main outcome measure Readmissions within 6 months after discharge. Results In total, 1,007 control and 775 intervention patients were included in the study. The study found that half of the patients (50 % during the control and 48 % during the intervention period) admitted to Danish hospitals were treated with at least one of the five selected risk medications, significantly more drug related problems (DRPs) were identified during the control period (1.7/patient during the control and 1.4/patient during the intervention period (p < 0.001)), and the acceptance rate of recommendations (62 %) was similar to medication management service studies in the literature (39–100 %). However, no impact on outcome measures was found. The majority (69 %) of the clinical pharmacists reported that they had increased their professional competences by participating in the study, and that a national clinical pharmacy study may be used in promoting and implementing a unique clinical pharmacy service throughout the country (67 %). Conclusion The study showed that a national screening service for risk medications could help identify and address DRPs. Despite no impact on the selected outcome measures, it is likely that the screening service could be included in a medication management review with further focus on the individual patient to ensure positive outcomes, or that the screening service should be delivered to selected patients groups, who might have maximum benefit of the service.


Clinical pharmacy Denmark Hospital Intervention Risk medication Screening 



We would like to thank the clinical pharmacists and pharmaconomists contributing to conducting the study.


The study was financially supported by The Research and Development Fund of The Hospital Pharmacies and Amgros and The Region of Southern Denmark.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    The Danish Safer Hospital Programme. High risk medication. April 2010, Version 1.0. Accessed 8 Nov 2013.
  2. 2.
    Budnitz DS, Shehab N, Kegler SR, Richards CL. Medication use leading to emergency department visits for adverse drug events in older adults. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(11):755–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanjanarat P, Winterstein AG, Johns TE, Hatton RC, Gonzalez-Rothi R, Segal R. Nature of preventable adverse drug events in hospitals: a literature review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003;60(17):1750–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Danish Health and Medicines Authority. Theme report 2007: risk medication. Medications, which are involved in actual and potential SAC 3 evens. Nov 2007, version 1.0 Electronic ISBN: 978 -87-7676-533-0.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Danish Health and Medicines Authority. Annual report 2009. The Danish Patient Safety Database. 2010. Accessed 8 Nov 2013.
  6. 6.
    de Vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA. The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:216–23.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schiøler T, Lipczak H, Pedersen BL, Mogensen TS, Bech KB, Stockmarr A, Svenning AR, Frølich A. Danish adverse event study incidence of adverse events in hospitals: a retrospective study of medical records. Ugeskr Laeger. 2001;163:5370–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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(3):267–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weiner BK, Venarske J, Yu M, et al. Towards the reduction of medication errors in orthopedics and spinal surgery: outcomes using a pharmacist-led approach. Spine. 2008;33(1):104–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsen MD, Nielsen LP, Jeffery L, et al. Medicineringsfejl ved indlæggelse på sygehus. Ugeskr Laeger. 2006;168(35):2887–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mogensen CB, Thisted AR, Olsen I. Medication problems are frequent and often serious in a Danish emergency department and may be discovered by clinical pharmacists. Dan Med J. 2012;59(11):A4532.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gillespie U, Alassaad A, Henrohn D, Garmo H, Hammarlund-Udenaes M, Toss H, Kettis-Lindblad A, Melhus H, Mörlin C. A comprehensive pharmacist intervention to reduce morbidity in patients 80 years or older: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(9):894–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghatnekar O, Bondesson A, Persson U, Eriksson T. Health economic evaluation of the Lund Integrated Medicines Management Model (LIMM) in elderly patients admitted to hospital. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e001563. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001563.
  14. 14.
    Hellström LM, Bondesson A, Höglund P, Midlöv P, Holmdahl L, Rickhag E, Eriksson T. Impact of the Lund Integrated Medicines Management (LIMM) model on medication appropriateness and drug-related hospital revisits. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(7):741–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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(5):379–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bates D, Boyle D, Vliet M, Schneider J, Leape L. Relationship between medication errors and adverse drug events. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(4):199–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ebbesen J, Buajordet I, Erikssen J, Brors O, Hilberg T, Svaar H, et al. Drug-related deaths in a department of internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(19):2317–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graabaek T, Kjeldsen LJ. Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists at hospitals lead to improved patient outcomes: a systematic review. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;112(6):359–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lene Juel Kjeldsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marianne Hald Clemmensen
    • 1
  • Christian Kronborg
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ulla Hedegaard
    • 4
  • Line Hedegaard Larsen
    • 5
  • Inger Olsen Yderstræde
    • 6
  • Jette Lyngholm Nielsen
    • 7
  • Trine Rune Høgh Nielsen
    • 5
  1. 1.The Research Unit for Hospital PharmacyCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Centre of Health Economics Research (COHERE)University of Southern DenmarkCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Quality in Healthcare Services, Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Southern DenmarkCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Clinical PharmacologyUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  5. 5.The Hospital PharmacyNæstvedDenmark
  6. 6.The Hospital PharmacyKoldingDenmark
  7. 7.The Hospital PharmacySkejbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations