International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 244–250 | Cite as

Adaptation and validation of PCNE drug-related problem classification v6.2 in French-speaking Belgian community pharmacies

  • M. KoubaityEmail author
  • M. Lelubre
  • G. Sansterre
  • K. Amighi
  • C. De Vriese
Research Article


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 



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.

Supplementary material

11096_2018_773_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (77 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 77 kb)


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 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. 3.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(3):533–43.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    PCNE. Classification for Drug related problems 2003–2010. Accessed Nov 2009.
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Westerlund L, Almarsdo A, Melander A. Drug related problems and pharmacy interventions in community practice. Int J Pharm Pract. 1999;7:40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Mil JW. Developing a DRP classification: a never ending story. PCNE Symposium, Geneva, 2009. Accessed 1 Dec 2018.
  9. 9.
    Van Mil JW, Westerlund LO, Hersberger KE, Schaefer MA. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(5):859–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    PCNE. Looking for the different versions of the PCNE-DRP classification? Accessed 1 Dec 2018.
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20(3):269–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Hammerlein A, Griese N, Schulz M. Survey of drug-related problems identified by community pharmacies. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(11):1825–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutics, Faculty of PharmacyUniversité libre de Bruxelles (ULB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations