Comparing 4 classification systems for drug-related problems: Processes and functions
Introduction
The documentation of drug-related problems (DRPs) is regarded as an essential component of pharmaceutical care.1 A good classification system can serve both as a guideline for the pharmacist counseling a patient and as a means of documenting the results of the counseling. However, a search in Medline revealed that several classification systems for DRPs have been proposed, suggesting a lack of agreement concerning both definitions of DRPs and their classification.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 This can probably be explained by the fact that the activity of counseling patients is a new enterprise for pharmacists. Consequently, many pharmacists are working to find the best practice and to create tools that support their way of practicing. As a result, a variety of different definitions, practices, and tools emerge. In a developing phase like this, it is valuable to describe the various expressions of practitioners' work to increase the understanding of what is going on. Against this background, we were interested to find out how classification systems differ. Previous comparative reviews have focused mainly on the structure of systems.14 In this study, we focus on the processes and functions of systems.
Section snippets
Aim
This study aims at exploring and describing the characteristics of 4 classification systems for DRPs to understand their similarities and differences with regard to processes and functions.
General methodological problems
The task of comparing different DRP classification systems is connected to major methodological difficulties. The reason for this is that the systems as such must be used in order to be able to explore the processes and functions of the systems. It is not sufficient to study the various categories and the instructions of a system; the experience of the actual use of the system is a key factor in the exploration. This means that when different systems are to be explored and compared (which was
Results
The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3, wherein the identified 8 themes and related characteristics of each system are listed. From the patterns that emerged, an overall function of the systems were identified. The overall functions were:
- •
Strand: To help patients achieve their desired drug-related outcomes
- •
Granada-II: To identify clinical outcomes of patients' drug therapy
- •
PCNE: To identify drug-related events known to lead to harm or jeopardize outcome
- •
Apoteket: To help patients use
Discussion
This is, to our knowledge, the first study that compares classification systems for DRPs and analyzes characteristics in relation to processes and functions. Previous reviews have acknowledged that different classification systems have different structures.14 However, by focusing on the processes of the systems new knowledge was gained. The process as such can be understood as a cognitive map to classify a problem and this process has a profound impact on the result. The exploration revealed
Conclusion
The classification systems for DRPs examined in this study are different, not only in structure but also in cognitive process, which thus influences the outcome of the classification. Two important characteristics that separated the studied systems were whether the patient participated in the classification of the problems and whether process-related issues were classified. Because the systems have different characteristics, their overall functions are different. The way a system functions is
Acknowledgments
The authors are most grateful to Dr. Foppe van Mil for valuable comments on previous versions of this paper. The study was supported by the National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies (Apoteket AB). A grant was received from The Swedish Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Apotekarsocieteten).
References (26)
- et al.
Compensation in Canada for resolving drug-related problems
J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash)
(1996) Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines
Lancet
(2001)- et al.
Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care
Am J Hosp Pharm
(1990) - et al.
Community pharmacists' documentation of intervention on drug related problems of elderly patients
J Soc Adm Pharm
(1994) - et al.
Clinical evaluation of community pharmacists´ interventions
Int J Pharm Pract
(1996) - et al.
Medication regimen review process. A guide for community pharmacists
Aust Pharm
(1996) - et al.
Drug-related problems and pharmacy interventions in community practice
Int J Pharm Pract
(1999) - et al.
The development and evaluation of an extended adherence support programme by community pharmacists for elderly patients at home
Int J Pharm Pract
(2000) - et al.
Drug-related problems in the elders of the British Virgin Islands
Int J Pharm Pract
(2000) - et al.
Pharmacist-led medication review in patients over 65: a randomized, controlled trial in primary care
Age Ageing
(2001)
Collaborative medication management services: improving patient care
Med J Aust
Discussing basic principles for a coding system of drug-related problems: the case of PI-Doc
Pharm World Sci
Cited by (22)
Pharma Studies III: Draw me a clinical model
2014, Pharmacien Hospitalier et ClinicienPharmacists' performance of clinical interventions during adherence support medication reviews
2014, Research in Social and Administrative PharmacyCitation Excerpt :Problems related to medication use are termed Drug-related Problems or DRPs. DRPs have been defined as “a circumstance related to a patient/customer's use of a drug that actually or potentially prevents the patient from gaining the intended benefit of the drug.”1 DRPs have been associated with serious drug-related morbidity and mortality, inconvenience to patients and could affect patients' quality of life.2,3
Drug-related problems (DRPs) identified from geriatric medication safety review clinics
2012, Archives of Gerontology and GeriatricsCitation Excerpt :We had to make minor adjustments to the PCNE instrument to code all identified problems. ( Bjorkman et al., 2008; Lampert et al., 2008). We found, on average, two DRPs per participant, a number very close to that from the Swedish study (Bjorkman et al., 2008) but only half of the problems found with assistance of a Diabetes Mellitus- (DM) specific checklist (Van Roozendaal and Krass, 2009).
Pharmaceutical care for older adults. Application of STOPP-START criteria
2020, Journal of Healthcare Quality ResearchSystematic review of the prevalence and nature of drug-related problems in paediatric patients
2022, Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and TherapeuticsMedication therapy problem documentation and reporting: A review of the literature and recommendations
2021, JACCP Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy