Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 212–217 | Cite as

Development of a quality use of medicines coding system to rate clinical pharmacists' medication review recommendations

  • L. Sorensen
  • M.S. Roberts
  • M.P. Grobler
Article

Abstract

Objective: To develop a 'quality use of medicines' coding system for the assessment of pharmacists' medication reviews and to apply it to an appropriate cohort.Method: A 'quality use of medicines' coding system was developed based on findings in the literature. These codes were then applied to 216 (111 intervention, 105 control( veterans' medication profiles by an independent clinical pharmacist who was supported by a clinical pharmacologist with the aim to assess the appropriateness of pharmacy interventions. The profiles were provided for veterans participating in a randomised, controlled trial in private hospitals evaluating the effect of medication review and discharge counselling. The reliability of the coding was tested by two independent clinical pharmacists in a random sample of 23 veterans from the study population.Main outcome measure: Interrater reliability was assessed by applying Cohen's kappa score on aggregated codes.Results: The coding system based on the literature consisted of 19 codes. The results from the three clinical pharmacists suggested that the original coding system had two major problems: (a( a lack of discrimination for certain recommendations e.g. adverse drug reactions, toxicity and mortality may be seen as variations in degree of a single effect and (b( certain codes e.g. essential therapy were in low prevalence. The interrater reliability for an aggregation of all codes into positive, negative and clinically non‐significant codes ranged from 0.49–0.58 (good to fair(. The interrater reliability increased to 0.72–0.79 (excellent( when all negative codes were excluded. Analysis of the sample of 216 profiles showed that the most prevalent recommendations from the clinical pharmacists were a positive impact in reducing adverse responses (31.9%(, an improvement in good clinical pharmacy practice (25.5%( and a positive impact in reducing drug toxicity (11.1%(. Most medications were assigned the clinically non‐significant code (96.6%(. In fact, the interventions led to a statistically significant difference in pharmacist recommendations in the categories; adverse response, toxicity and good clinical pharmacy practice measured by the quality use of medicine coding system.Conclusion: It was possible to use the quality use of medicine coding system to rate the quality and potential health impact of pharmacists' medication reviews, and the system did pick up differences between intervention and control patients. The interrater reliability for the summarised coding system was fair, but a larger sample of medication regimens is needed to assess the non‐summarised quality use of medicines coding system.

Coding system Drug related problems Interrater reliability Medication review Medicines management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hanlon JT, Weinberger M, Samsa GP, Schmader KE, Uttech KM, Lewis IK et al. A randomized, controlled trial of a clinical pharmacist intervention to improve inappropriate prescribing in elderly outpatients with polypharmacy. Am J Med 1996; 100: 428–37.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    King MA, Roberts MS. Multidisciplinary case conference reviews: improving outcomes for nursing home residents, carers and health professionals. Pharm World Sci 2001; 23: 41–5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lipton HL, Bero LA, Bird JA, McPhee SJ. The impact of clinical pharmacists' consultations on physicians' geriatric drug prescribing. A randomized controlled trial. Med Care 1992; 30(7): 646–58.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lipton HL, Bird JA. The impact of clinical pharmacists' consultations on geriatric patients' compliance and medical care use: a randomized controlled trial. Gerontologist 1994; 34(3): 307–15.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roberts MS, Stokes JA, King MA, Lynne TA, Purdie DM, Glasziou PP et al. Outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of a clinical pharmacy intervention in 52 nursing homes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 51(3): 257–65.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zermansky AG, Petty DR, Raynor DK, Freemantle N, Vail A, Lowe CJ. Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice. BMJ 2001; 323: 1–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beers MH. Explicit criteria for determining potentially inappropriate medication use by the elderly. An update. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157(14): 1531–6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beers MH, Ouslander JG, Fingold SF, Morgenstern H, Reuben DB, Rogers W et al. Inappropriate medication prescribing in skilled-nursing facilities. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117(8): 684–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanlon JT, Shimp LA, Semla TP. Recent advances in geriatrics: drug-related problems in the elderly. Ann Pharmacother 2000; 34(3): 360–5.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oborne CA, Batty GM, Maskrey V, Swift CG, Jackson SH. Development of prescribing indicators for elderly medical inpatients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 43(1): 91–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coste J, Sene B, Milstein C, Bouee S, Venot A. Indicators for the automated analysis of drug prescribing quality. Methods Inf Med 1998; 37(1): 38–44.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shimp LA, Ascione FJ, Glazer HM, Atwood BF. Potential medication-related problems in noninstitutionalized elderly. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1985; 19(10): 766–72.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tully MP, Cantrill JA. Exploring the domains of appropriateness of drug therapy, using the Nominal Group Technique. Pharm World Sci 2002; 24(4): 128–31.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strand LM, Morley PC, Cipolle RJ, Ramsey R, Lamsam GD. Drug-related problems: their structure and function. DICP 1990; 24(11): 1093–7Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rupp MT, DeYoung M, Schondelmeyer SW. Prescribing problems and pharmacist interventions in community practice. Med Care 1992; 30(10): 926–40.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nathan A, Goodyer L, Lovejoy A, Rashid A. 'Brown bag' medication reviews as a means of optimizing patients' use of medication and of identifying potential clinical problems. Fam Pract 1999; 16(3): 278–82.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cooper JW, Jr. Consultant pharmacist drug therapy recommendations from monthly drug regimen reviews in a geriatric nursing facility: a two-year study and cost analysis. J Nutr Health Aging 1997; 1(3): 181–4.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frisk PA, Cooper JW, Jr., Campbell NA. Community-hospital pharmacist detection of drug-related problems upon patient admission to small hospitals. Am J Hosp Pharm 1977; 34(7): 738–42.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fillit HM, Futterman R, Orland BI, Chim T, Susnow L, Picariello GP et al. Polypharmacy management in Medicare managed care: changes in prescribing by primary care physicians resulting from a program promoting medication reviews. Am J Manage Care 1999; 5(5): 587–94.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Furniss L, Burns A, Craig SK, Scobie S, Cooke J, Faragher B. Effects of a pharmacist's medication review in nursing homes. Randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 176: 563–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fleiss J. The measurement of inter-rater agreement. In: Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley, 1981.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Uttech KM, Lewis IK et al. A method for assessing drug therapy appropriateness. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(10): 1045–51.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fitzgerald LS, Hanlon JT, Shelton PS, Landsman PB, Schmader KE, Pulliam CC et al. Reliability of a modified medication appropriateness index in ambulatory older persons. Ann Pharmacother 1997; 31(5): 543–8.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murray MD. Medication appropriateness index: putting a number on an old problem in older patients. Ann Pharmacother 1997; 31(5): 643–4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Sorensen
    • 1
  • M.S. Roberts
    • 1
  • M.P. Grobler
    • 2
  1. 1.Quality of Medication Care Group, Department of MedicineThe University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra HospitalBrisbaneAustralia E-mail
  2. 2.Pharmacia Australia (Pty) LtdAustralia

Personalised recommendations