Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1162–1171 | Cite as

Demonstrating the clinical pharmacist’s activity: validation of an intervention oriented classification system

  • Karen A. Maes
  • Regina M. Tremp
  • GSASA Working group on clinical pharmacy
  • Kurt E. Hersberger
  • Markus L. Lampert
Research Article

Abstract

Background Clinical pharmacists are increasingly involved in detecting and solving drug-related problems. To document their performance, a convenient tool to code pharmaceutical interventions in daily practice is desirable. The Swiss Society of Public Health Administration and Hospital Pharmacists (GSASA) proposed to implement a new classification system for pharmaceutical interventions. Objectives To develop and validate a classification system for pharmaceutical interventions and to compare it with the well-established Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) system. Setting Rehabilitation clinic, geriatric and orthopaedic wards of a 427-bed teaching hospital. Methods Development of the GSASA classification started with expert panel discussions and the validation of the first version (GSASA V1). To assess appropriateness, interpretability, and validity, clinical pharmacists documented during a 6-week period all interventions using GSASA V1 and PCNE version 6.2 (V6.2). Acceptability and feasibility were tested by an 8-item questionnaire with 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), and inter-rater reliability (Fleiss-Kappa coefficients κ) was determined. After revision, the second version (V2) was assessed again for reliability. Mean outcome measures User’s agreement/satisfaction, comprehensiveness/reliability of the classification system. Results The GSASA V1 includes 4 categories and 35 subcategories. Of 115 interventions classified with GSASA V1, 93 (80.9 %) could be completely classified in all categories. This explains that 3 of 6 users could be not satisfied with the comprehensiveness of GSASA V1 (mean user agreement 2.7 ± 0.8). The questionnaire showed that all users could find GSASA V1 (4.0 ± 0.0) easier to use than PCNE V6.2 (3.0 ± 0.9). Users were generally satisfied with the GSASA V1 (3.5 ± 0.8), especially with the adequate time expenditure (4.0 ± 0.7). Inter-rater reliability and acceptability of GSASA V1 were comparable to those of the PCNE V6.2. The agreement among the GSASA V1 users was substantial for the categories ‘problem’ (κ = 0.66), ‘intervention’ (κ = 0.74), and ‘outcome’ (κ = 0.63), while moderate agreement for the category ‘cause’ was obtained (κ = 0.53). The final system GSASA V2 includes 5 categories (addition of ‘type of problem’) and 41 subcategories. Total inter-rater reliability was moderate (κ = 0.52). Conclusion The GSASA classification system appeared to be reliable and promising for documentation of pharmaceutical interventions in daily practice (practical and less time-consuming). The system is validated in terms of appropriateness, interpretability, validity, acceptability, feasibility, and reliability.

Keywords

Classification system Clinical pharmacy Drug-related problems Pharmaceutical care Pharmaceutical interventions Validation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the participating pharmacists (Dr. Seraina Mengiardi Nemec, Andrea Studer, Markus Messerli, Dr. Fabienne Böni, and Carole Kaufmann) for classifying the cases and answering the questionnaire. We thank Dr. Silvia Rogers and Dr. Claire Jessica Wilson for proof-reading.

Funding

No grants from any external funding body were received to conduct this study.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. Definition drug-related problem. http://www.pcne.org/working-groups/2/drug-related-problems. Accessed 12 Aug 2015.
  2. 2.
    Krähenbühl-Melcher A, Schlienger R, Lampert M, Haschke M, Drewe J, Krähenbühl S. Drug-related problems in hospitals: a review of the recent literature. Drug Saf. 2007;30(5):379–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lampert M, Kraehenbuehl S, Hug B. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    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
  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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Praxiom Research Group Limited. ISO 9000 2005 Plain English Defintions. 2001 [updated 04.05.2014]. http://www.praxiom.com/iso-definition.htm. Accessed 12 Aug 2015.
  9. 9.
    Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Mil JW, Westerlund LO, Hersberger KE, Schaefer MA. Drug-related problem classification systems. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(5):859–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American College of Clinical Pharmacy. The definition of clinical pharmacy. Pharmacotherapy. 2008;28:816–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. Classification for drug related problems V6.2. 2010 [updated 14.01.2010]. http://www.pcne.org/upload/files/11_PCNE_classification_V6-2.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2015.
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    AbuRuz SM, Bulatova NR, Yousef AM. Validation of a comprehensive classification tool for treatment-related problems. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28(4):222–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ganso M. Verlässlichkeit eines Klassifikationssystems für pharmazeutische Interventionen. Krankenhauspharmazie. 2007;7:273.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    King JE. Resource page: generalized Kappa & other indices of interrater reliability. http://www.ccitonline.org/jking/homepage/interrater.html. Accessed 12 Aug 2015.
  17. 17.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen A. Maes
    • 1
    • 2
  • Regina M. Tremp
    • 1
  • GSASA Working group on clinical pharmacy
  • Kurt E. Hersberger
    • 1
  • Markus L. Lampert
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Clinical PharmacyKantonsspital BasellandBruderholzSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations