Adaptation and validation of PCNE drug-related problem classification v6.2 in French-speaking Belgian community pharmacies
- 101 Downloads
Background Many tools exist to document drug-related problems (DRP), such as the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) classification. However, none have been adapted and published for French-speaking Belgian community pharmacies. Settings French-speaking Belgian Community pharmacies. Objective The objective was to translate and adapt the PCNE V6.2 classification to the Belgian pharmacy practice and legal setting and to assess the content validity, daily use and inter-rater reliability of this classification. Main Outcome Measure Validation of the French-language adapted PCNE v6.2 classification in Belgium. Method The first step translated and adapted the PCNE V6.2 classification to the Belgian setting. Thereafter academic and community pharmacists evaluated the content validity, which involved six criteria and concerned the instruction manual (clarity, helpfulness) and the registration form (representativeness, logical design, completeness and uniqueness). The next step was the DRP collection, using the PCNE tool daily. Compliance with the instructions and the time needed to solve a DRP were evaluated. Finally, the inter-rater reliability was evaluated by comparing DRP codings done by pharmacist volunteers. Results The classification was translated into French and adapted by adding 16 items. The classification showed a high content validity for the academics and the community pharmacists. A total of 109 DRP forms were coded, with an average resolution time of 5 min. Regarding the inter-rater reliability, 74 tool items out of the set of 83 showed high consistency in coding. Conclusion This study showed that the tool adaptation to a French-speaking Belgian context was reliable and has adequate validity for daily use.
KeywordsBelgium Classification system Community pharmacy practice Drug-related problems French translation PCNE Validation
The authors thank all the pharmacists that participated in this study.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 2.Loi modifiant l’Arrêté Royal No 78 du 10 Novembre 1967 relatif à l’exercice des professions des soins de santé (2006).Google Scholar
- 3.Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(3):533–43.Google Scholar
- 4.PCNE. Classification for Drug related problems 2003–2010. http://www.pcne.org/upload/files/11_PCNE_classification_V6-2.pdf. Accessed Nov 2009.
- 8.Van Mil JW. Developing a DRP classification: a never ending story. PCNE Symposium, Geneva, 2009. https://www.pcne.org/upload/ws2009/DRP%20Vanmil%20Pres.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2018.
- 10.PCNE. Looking for the different versions of the PCNE-DRP classification? http://www.pcne.org/working-groups/2/drug-related-problem-classification. Accessed 1 Dec 2018.
- 11.Claeys C, Neve J, Tulkens PM, Spinewine A. Content validity and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to characterize unintentional medication discrepancies. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(7):577–91.Google Scholar
- 18.Nivya K, Sri Sai Kiran V, Ragoo N, Jayaprakash B, Sonal Sekhar M. Systemic review on drug related hospital admissions—a pubmed based search. Saudi Pharm J SPJ Off Publ Saudi Pharm Soc. 2015;23(1):1–8.Google Scholar