Background A standardised classification system of pharmaceutical interventions (PI) is in use in several Swiss hospitals, whereas none exists for community pharmacies to date. To promote information exchange between both settings, a compatible structure of the classification system is needed. Objective To develop an intervention oriented classification system for community pharmacies named PharmDISC based on the hospital system; to test it on interrater reliability, appropriateness, interpretability, and face and content validity; to assess pharmacists’ opinions. Setting Seventy-seven Swiss community pharmacies. Method Based on previous studies, a modified classification system was developed. Fifth-year pharmacy students (n = 77) received a two-hour training and classified three model PIs with which Fleiss-Kappa coefficients K were calculated to determine interrater reliability. In the community pharmacies, each student consecutively collected ten prescriptions that required a PI. A focus group interview was conducted with pharmacists (n = 9). The anonymised transcript was analysed using thematic analysis. Main outcome measure Number of classified PIs, interrater reliability, pharmacists’ opinion/suggestions. Results The classification system includes 5 categories and 52 subcategories. Most of the 725 PIs (94.6%) were completely classified. The PharmDISC system reached an overall substantial user agreement (K = 0.61). Despite some points for optimisation, the pharmacists were satisfied with the PharmDISC system. They recognised the importance of PI documentation and believed that this may allow traceability, facilitate communication within the team and other healthcare professionals, and increase quality of care. Conclusion The PharmDISC system was valid and reached substantial interrater reliability. Refinement based on the pharmacists’ suggestions resulted in a final version to be tested in an observational study with community pharmacists.
Classification system Community pharmacy practice Drug-related problem Mixed method Pharmaceutical care Pharmaceutical intervention
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank the participating fifth-year pharmacy students and their community pharmacies offering internship for collecting prescriptions and documenting the cases. The authors thank the members of the focus group (Dr. Patrick Eichenberger, Dr. Patrick Imfeld, Andrea Studer, Dr. Fabienne Böni, Pascale Prétot, Renate Allemann, Eva Franz, Dr. Jérôme Berger, Sara Zehnder) who contributed to our findings. We thank Dr. Roland Preston for proof-reading.
No grants from any external funding body were received to conduct this study.
Nicolas A, Eickhoff C, Griese N, Schulz M. Drug-related problems in prescribed medicines in Germany at the time of dispensing. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(3):476–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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(3):362–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hersberger KE, Botomino A, Sarkar R, Tschudi P, Bucher HC, Briel M. Prescribed medications and pharmacy interventions for acute respiratory tract infections in Swiss primary care. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2009;34(4):387–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Maes KA, Tremp RM, Hersberger KE, Lampert ML. Demonstrating the clinical pharmacist’s activity: validation of an intervention oriented classification system. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37(6):1162–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
American College of Clinical Pharmacy. The definition of clinical pharmacy. Pharmacotherapy. 2008;28(6):816–7.Google Scholar
Hammerlein A, Griese N, Schulz M. Survey of drug-related problems identified by community pharmacies. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(11):1825–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Strand LM, Morley PC, Cipolle RJ, Ramsey R, Lamsam GD. Drug-related problems: their structure and function. Ann Pharmacother. 1990;24(11):1093–7.Google Scholar
Westerlund LO, Handl WH, Marklund BR, Allebeck P. Pharmacy practitioners’ views on computerized documentation of drug-related problems. Ann Pharmacother. 2003;37(3):354–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
van Mil JW, Westerlund LO, Hersberger KE, Schaefer MA. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(5):859–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Williams M, Peterson GM, Tenni PC, Bindoff IK, Stafford AC. DOCUMENT: a system for classifying drug-related problems in community pharmacy. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(1):43–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Schaefer M. Discussing basic principles for a coding system of drug-related problems: the case of PI-Doc. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24(4):120–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bjorkman IK, Sanner MA, Bernsten CB. Comparing 4 classification systems for drug-related problems: processes and functions. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2008;4(4):320–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basger BJ, Moles RJ, Chen TF. Application of drug-related problem (DRP) classification systems: a review of the literature. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70(7):799–815.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Basger BJ, Moles RJ, Chen TF. Development of an aggregated system for classifying causes of drug-related problems. Ann Pharmacother. 2015;49(4):405–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Comité de Consenso. Third Consensus of Granada on Drug Related Problems (DRP) and Negative Outcomes associated with Medication (NOM), Spanish. Ars Pharm. 2007;48(1):5–17.Google Scholar
Krahenbuhl JM, Kremer B, Guignard B, Bugnon O. Practical evaluation of the drug-related problem management process in Swiss community pharmacies. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(6):777–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hohmann C, Eickhoff C, Klotz JM, Schulz M, Radziwill R. Development of a classification system for drug-related problems in the hospital setting (APS-Doc) and assessment of the inter-rater reliability. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37(3):276–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Allenet B, Bedouch P, Rose FX, Escofier L, Roubille R, Charpiat B, et al. Validation of an instrument for the documentation of clinical pharmacists’ interventions. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28(4):181–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Williams M, Peterson G, Tenni P, Bindoff I, Stafford A. DOCUMENT: a system for classifying drug-related problems in community pharmacy. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(1):43–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Ganso M, Areschin S, Lange P, Emser A, Rössler J, Krämer I. Verlässlichkeit eines Klassifikationssystems für pharmazeutische Interventionen. Krankenhauspharmazie. 2007;28(7):273–83.Google Scholar
Kaufmann CP, Stampfli D, Hersberger KE, Lampert ML. Determination of risk factors for drug-related problems: a multidisciplinary triangulation process. BMJ Open. 2015;5(3):e006376.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Ryan C, Cadogan C, Hughes C. Mixed methods research in pharmacy practice. In: Babar ZUD, editor. Pharmacy practice research methods. Basel: Springer; 2015. p. 107–21.Google Scholar
Driscoll DL, Appiah-Yeboah A, Salib P, Rupert DJ. Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: how to and why not. Ecol Environ Anthropol. 2007;3:19–27.Google Scholar
Brock KA, Casper KA, Green TR, Pedersen CA. Documentation of patient care services in a community pharmacy setting. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2006;46(3):378–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerlund T, AlmarsdÓTtir AB, Melander A. Drug-related problems and pharmacy interventions in community practice. Int J Pharm Pract. 1999;7(1):40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar