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.
Belgium Classification system Community pharmacy practice Drug-related problems French translation PCNE Validation
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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.
Costa FA, Scullin C, Al-Taani G, Hawwa AF, Anderson C, Bezverhni Z, et al. Provision of pharmaceutical care by community pharmacists across Europe: is it developing and spreading? J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:1336–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loi modifiant l’Arrêté Royal No 78 du 10 Novembre 1967 relatif à l’exercice des professions des soins de santé (2006).Google Scholar
Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(3):533–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20(3):269–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrey RA, Pedersen CA, Schneider PJ. Interrater agreement with a standard scheme for classifying medication errors. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2007;64(2):175–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maes KA, Studer H, Berger J, Hersberger KE, Lampert ML. Documentation of pharmaceutical care: validation of an intervention oriented classification system. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:1425–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerlein A, Griese N, Schulz M. Survey of drug-related problems identified by community pharmacies. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(11):1825–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Westerlund T, Gelin U, Pettersson E, Skarlund F, Wagstrom K, Ringbom C. A retrospective analysis of drug-related problems documented in a national database. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(2):202–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caleo S, Benrimoj S, Collins D, Lauchlan R, Stewart K. Clinical evaluation of community pharmacists’ interventions. Int J Pharm Pract. 1996;4:221–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampert ML, Kraehenbuehl S, Hug BL. Drug-related problems: evaluation of a classification system in the daily practice of a Swiss University Hospital. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(6):768–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva C, Ramalho C, Luz I, Monteiro J, Fresco P. Drug-related problems in institutionalized, polymedicated elderly patients: opportunities for pharmacist intervention. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37(2):327–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titley-Lake C, Barber N. Drug related problems in the elders of the British Virgin Islands. Int J Pharm Pract. 2000;8:53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar