International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 56–64 | Cite as

Translation and validation of a tool to assess the impact of clinical pharmacists’ interventions

  • Dominik StämpfliEmail author
  • Pascal Baumgartner
  • Fabienne Boeni
  • Pierrick Bedouch
  • Markus L. Lampert
  • Kurt E. Hersberger
Research Article


Background The tool CLEO in French language is designed for estimating the potential relevance of pharmacists’ interventions (PIs) in three independent dimensions with regard to process-related, clinical, economic, and humanistic impact. Objective We aimed to translate CLEO into German (CLEOde), to demonstrate its feasibility in daily practice, and to validate the German version. Setting Convenience sample of three Swiss hospitals with established clinical pharmacy services. Method We translated CLEO according to the ISPOR Principles of Good Practice. The potential relevance of PIs performed within a 13-day period of routine clinical pharmacy services was then estimated with CLEOde. Ten clinical pharmacists experienced with CLEOde subsequently completed a 19-item questionnaire to assess user’s agreement on appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, and precision of the tool. Additionally, each pharmacist evaluated 10 model cases with CLEOde. Main outcome measure User satisfaction; interrater reliability and test–retest reliability. Results CLEOde was used to estimate the potential relevance of 324 PIs. The reported time needed to complete a single estimation was less than 1 min. The use of CLEOde was seen as appropriate, acceptable, feasible, and precise. Interrater reliability was good for the clinical and economic dimensions and was poor for the organisational dimension; test–retest correlation was strong for all three dimensions with excellent to fair reliability. Conclusion We present CLEOde as a validated tool in German language suitable to estimate the potential relevance of PIs. After further refinement of the organisational dimension, CLEOde could provide a qualitative value to quantitative information on PIs.


Classification CLEO Tool Clinical pharmacy Clinical relevance Drug-related problems Interrater reliability Pharmacists’ interventions Translation 



The study was enabled by funds from the university. No external sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct of this study or the preparation of this article.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this study.

Supplementary material

11096_2018_755_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (120 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 121 kb)


  1. 1.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(3):533–43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foppe van Mil JW, Westerlund T, Brown L, Chen TF, Henman M, Hersberger K, et al. Medical care and drug-related problems: Do doctors and pharmacists speak the same language? Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(2):191–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krahenbuhl-Melcher A, Schlienger R, Lampert M, Haschke M, Drewe J, Krahenbuhl S. Drug-related problems in hospitals: a review of the recent literature. Drug Saf. 2007;30(5):379–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization WHO. Developing pharmacy practice: a focus on patient care. Geneva 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rothschild JM, Churchill W, Erickson A, Munz K, Schuur JD, Salzberg CA, et al. Medication errors recovered by emergency department pharmacists. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55(6):513–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaboli PJ, Hoth AB, McClimon BJ, Schnipper JL. Clinical pharmacists and inpatient medical care: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(9):955–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The PCNE Classification V 6.2: Classification for drug related problems. Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe Working Conference 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cipolle R, Strand L, Morley P. Pharmaceutical care practice: the clinician’s guide. New York: The McGraw-Hilll Companies; 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vo TH, Charpiat B, Catoire C, Juste M, Roubille R, Rose FX et al. Tools for assessing potential significance of pharmacist interventions: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spinewine A, Dhillon S, Mallet L, Tulkens PM, Wilmotte L, Swine C. Implementation of ward-based clinical pharmacy services in Belgium—description of the impact on a geriatric unit. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40(4):720–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bosma L, Jansman FG, Franken AM, Harting JW, Van den Bemt PM. Evaluation of pharmacist clinical interventions in a Dutch hospital setting. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(1):31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dean B, Schachter M, Vincent C, Barber N. Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: their incidence and clinical significance. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(4):340–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vo TH. Evaluation of the potential impact of pharmacist interventions: development and validation of the CLEO multidimensional tool. Grenoble, France: Université Grenoble Alpes; 2015.
  15. 15.
    Mongaret C, Quillet P, Vo TH, Aubert L, Fourgeaud M, Michelet-Huot E, et al. Predictive factors for clinically significant pharmacist interventions at hospital admission. Medicine. 2018;97(9):e9865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Breuer J, Seeling M, Barz M, Baldini T, Scholtz K, Spies C. A standardised German translation of the standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD statement): methodological aspects. J Evid Qual Health Care. 2011;106(7):500–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    AbuRuz SM, Bulatova NR, Yousef AM. Validation of a comprehensive classification tool for treatment-related problems. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28(4):222–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ganso M, Areschin S, Lange P, Emser A, Rossler J, Kramer I. Verlasslichkeit eines Klassifikationssystems fur pharmazeutische Interventionen. Krankenhauspharmazie. 2007;28(7):273.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(1):30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hollander M, Wolfe DA, Chicken E. Nonparametric statistical methods. New York: Wiley; 2013.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    RStudio Team. RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA. 2015.
  24. 24.
    R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2016.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gamer M, Lemon J, Fellows Puspendra Singh I. irr: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. 2012.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Clinical PharmacySolothurner Spitaeler AGOltenSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy TIMC-IMAG/CNRS (UMR5525)University Grenoble AlpesGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations