Factors Determining Quality of Drug Information by Hospital Pharmacies—Results from Five-Year Annual Quality Assessment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Annual DI Quality Assessment
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Statistical Analysis
2.4. Ethics Approval
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of Annual Assessment
3.2. Multivariate Logistic Regression on the Influence of Parameters on Content-Related Quality of Answers
3.3. Multivariate Logistic Regression on the Influence of Parameters on Structural Quality of Answers
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- WHO. Policy Perspectives on Medicines (2002) Promoting Rational Use of Medicines: Core Components. Available online: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/67438/WHO_EDM_2002.3.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2024).
- International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP). Requirements for Drug Information Centre. 2005. Available online: http://www.cff.org.br/userfiles/file/cebrim/RequirementsforDrugInformationCentres%202005%20final.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2024).
- Ghaibi, S.; Ipema, H.; Gabay, M.; American Society of Health System Pharmacists. ASHP guidelines on the pharmacist’s role in providing drug information. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2015, 72, 573–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arzneimittelinformation aus der Krankenhausapotheke. Leitlinie der ADKA, Stand 15.09.2021. Available online: https://www.krankenhauspharmazie.de/heftarchiv/2021/11/arzneimittelinformation-aus-der-krankenhausapotheke-leitlinie-der-adka-zur-qualitaetssicherung-stand-der-letzten-aenderung-15-09-2021.html (accessed on 6 January 2024).
- Reppe, L.A.; Spigset, O.; Schjøtt, J. Drug information services today: Current role and future perspectives in rational drug therapy. Clin. Ther. 2016, 38, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schjott, J. Benefits of a national network of drug information centres: RELIS. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2017, 73, 125–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- United Kingdom Medicines Information. Available online: https://www.ukmi.nhs.uk/Contacts?ContentID={0A1DB78C-707B-4CB4-BBC0-9176DA4A4ADC} (accessed on 6 January 2024).
- Gesetz Über das Apothekenwesen (Apothekengesetz). § 14 (5). Zuletzt Geändert 29.3.2017. Available online: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/apog/ApoG.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2024).
- Frontini, R.; Miharija-Gala, T.; Sykora, J. EAHP survey 2010 on hospital pharmacy in Europe: Part 1. General frame and staffing. Eur. J. Hosp. Pharm. 2012, 19, 385–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SHPA. Committee of specialty practice in medicines information. SHPA standards of practice for medicines information services. J. Pharm. Pract. Res. 2012, 43, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UKMI Clinical Governance Working Group. Peer Review Good Practice Guidance. Available online: https://www.sps.nhs.uk/articles/ukmi-peer-review/ (accessed on 20 November 2023).
- Strobach, D.; Blassmann, U.; Gundl, S.; Krebs, S.; Querbach, C.; Schuhmacher, C.; Langebrake, C. Assessing the quality of drug information provided by hospital pharmacies using a fictitious enquiry and simulated real-life conditions. Eur. J. Hosp. Pharm. 2021, 28, s79–s84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bond, C.A.; Raehl, C.L.; Franke, T. Clinical Pharmacy Services and Hospital Mortality Rates. Pharmacotherapy 1999, 19, 556–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinky, D.E.; Erush, S.C.; Laskin, M.S.; Gibson, G.A. Economic impact of a drug information service. Ann. Pharmacother. 1999, 33, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rutter, J.; Rutter, P. Impact of pharmacy medicine information service advice on clinician and patient outcomes: An overview. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2019, 36, 299–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tierney, M.; Godbout, L.; Repchinsky, C. A peer review quality assurance program in drug information. Can. J. Hosp. Pharm. 1991, 44, 31–34. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, N.; Dupuis, L.L. A quality assurance audit of a drug information service. Can. J. Hosp. Pharm. 1989, 42, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Reppe, L.A.; Spigset, O.; Kampmann, J.P.; Damkier, P.; Christensen, H.R.; Böttiger, Y.; Schjøtt, J. Quality assessment of structure and language elements of written responses given by seven Scandinavian drug information centres. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2017, 73, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calis, K.A.; Anderson, D.W.; Auth, D.A.; Mays, D.A.; Turcasso, N.M.; Meyer, C.C.; Young, L.R. Quality of pharmacotherapy consultations provided by drug information centres in the United States. Pharmacotherapy 2000, 20, 830–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alkhaldi, N.; Desborough, J.; Wright, D.; Wood, J.; House, T. A Five Year Review of Patient Focussed Medicine Information Queries at a Large UK Teaching Trust: Assessing the Trends, Predicting the Future. J. Pharm. Care Health Syst. 2014, 1, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, J.N. Cost savings associated with a dedicated drug information service in an academic medical center. Hosp. Pharm. 2011, 46, 680–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reppe, L.A.; Lydersen, S.; Schjøtt, J.; Damkier, P.; Christensen, H.R.; Kampmann, J.P. Relationship between Time Consumption and Quality of Responses to Drug-related Queries: A Study From Seven Drug Information Centers in Scandinavia. Clin. Ther. 2016, 38, 1738–1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reppe, L.A.; Spigset, O.; Schjøtt, J. Which factors predict the time spent answering queries to a drug information centre? Pharm. World Sci. 2010, 32, 799–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reppe, L.A.; Spigset, O.; Böttiger, Y.; Christensen, H.R.; Kampmann, J.P.; Damkier, P.; Lydersen, S.; Schjøtt, J. Factors associated with time consumption when answering drug-related queries to Scandinavian drug information centres: A multi-centre study. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2014, 70, 1395–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- UKMI North West Medicines Information Centre. Guidance Notes for Ranking Enquiries. Available online: https://docest.com/doc/4495/guidance-notes-for-ranking-enquiries/ (accessed on 20 November 2023).
- Strobach, D.; Schuhmacher, C. Ringversuch Arzneimittelinformation 2018. Krankenhauspharmazie 2019, 40, 83–86. [Google Scholar]
- Strobach, D.; Blassmann, U.; Gundl, S.; Krebs, S.; Langebrake, C.; Querbach, C.; Schuhmacher, C. 3. Ringversuch Arzneimittelinformation der ADKA: Kunst der Fragestellung, Musterantwort und Qualität von Literaturangaben. Krankenhauspharmazie 2020, 41, 187–191. [Google Scholar]
- Strobach, D.; Blassmann, U.; Gundl, S.; Krebs, S.; Langebrake, C.; Querbach, C.; Schuhmacher, C. 4. Ringversuch Arzneimittelinformation der ADKA. Krankenhauspharmazie 2021, 42, 57–58. [Google Scholar]
- Strobach, D.; Blassmann, U.; Gundl, S.; Krebs, S.; Langebrake, C.; Querbach, C.; Schuhmacher, C. 5. Ringversuch Arzneimittelinformation der ADKA. Was ist wichtig bei der Bearbeitung von Anfragen zu Nebenwirkungen? Krankenhauspharmazie 2022, 43, 154–158. [Google Scholar]
- Escalante-Saavedra, P.A.; Marques-Batista, G.; Maniero, H.K.; Bedatt-Silva, R.; Calvo-Barbado, D.M. Brazilian Drug Information Centre: Descriptive study on the quality of information 2010–2015. Farm. Hosp. 2017, 41, 334–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Flôres, D.D.R.V.; Augusto de Toni Sartori, A.; Antunes, J.B.; Nunes Pinto, A.; Pletsch, J.; da Silva Dal Pizzol, T. Drug information center: Challenges of the research process to answer enquiries in hospital pharmaceutical practices. Eur. J. Hosp. Pharm. 2018, 25, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McEntee, J.E.; Henderson, S.L.; Rutter, P.M.; Rutter, J.; Davis, H.J. Utility and value of a medicines information service provided by pharmacists: A survey of health professionals. Int. J. Pharm. Pr. 2010, 18, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosenberg, J.M.; Koumis, T.; Nathan, J.P.; Cicero, L.A.; McGuire, H. Current status of pharmacist-operated drug information centers in the United States. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2004, 61, 2023–2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scala, D.; Bracco, A.; Cozzolino, S.; Cristinziano, A.; De Marino, C.; Di Martino, A.; Gonzalez, E.; Mancini, A.; Romagnuolo, F.; Zeuli, L. Italian drug information centres: Benchmark report. Pharm. World Sci. 2001, 23, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pompe, S.V.; Strobach, D.; Stief, C.G.; Becker, A.J.; Trottmann, M. Drug use among men with unfulfilled wish to father children: A retrospective analysis and discussion of specific drug classes. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2016, 25, 668–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beiard, S.L.; Coley, R.M.; Blunt, J.R. Assessing the accuracy of drug information responses from drug information centers. Ann. Pharmacother. 1994, 28, 707–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallo, G.R.; Vander Zanden, J.A.; Wertheimer, A.I. Anonymous peer review of answers received from drug information centres. J. Clin. Hosp. Pharm. 1985, 10, 397–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dugas, M.; Weinzierl, S.; Pecar, A.; Endres, S.; Hasford, J. Design and implementation of a common drug information database for a university hospital. Pharm. World Sci. 2004, 25, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Answer corresponding to question |
Logical organization of answer |
Conclusion/recommendation presented |
Conclusion/recommendation logically deduced of presented information |
References given |
References presented in a way they can be tracked/checked |
Correct grammar and spelling |
Absence of unclear or misleading information |
Good readability and understandability |
Length of answer appropriate |
Test Year | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Topic | Contraindication/drug choice | Preoperative drug management | Drugs in lactation | Overdose/toxicology | Adverse drug reaction |
Enquiry level [25] | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
No. of predefined essential information | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
No. of predefined additional useful information | 6 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 6 |
Year | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2017–2021 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of participants [n (%)] | 45 (100) | 71 (100) | 79 (100) | 118 (100) | 122 (100) | 435 (100) |
Characteristics of participants | ||||||
No. of pharmacists [median (range)] | 6 (2–26) | 5.5 (1–29) | 6.5 (2–33) | 6 (1–34) | 6 (2–25) | 6 (1–34) |
DI Organization 1 | ||||||
DI center [n (%)] | 11 (25) | 17 (24) | 18 (23) | 19 (16) | 16 (13) | 81 (19) |
Pharmacist per day [n (%)] | 5 (11) | 5 (7) | 10 (13) | 4 (3) | 4 (3) | 28 (6) |
On routine [n (%)] | 29 (64) | 49 (69) | 47 (60) | 93 (79) | 87 (71) | 305 (70) |
Unknown [n (%)] | 0 | 0 | 4 (5) | 2 (2) | 15 (12) | 21 (5) |
No. of quality measures 2 [median (range)] | 3 (1–4) | 2 (0–4) | 3 (1–4) | 2.5 (0–4) | 3 (0–4) | 3 (0–4) |
Level DI experience of the answering pharmacist 3 [median (range)] | 4 (1–4) | 3 (1–4) | 3 (0–4) | 3 (1–4) | 3 (1–4) | 3 (0–4) |
Content-related results on test inquiry | ||||||
No. of participants with all essential information [n (%)] | 28 (62) | 22 (31) | 74 (94) | 88 (75) | 8 (7) | 220 (49) |
No. of optional contents [median (range)] | 4 (0–7) | 4 (0–8) | 5 (2–8) | 3 (0–8) | 2 (0–6) | 3 (0–8) |
No. of participants with irrelevant information [n (%)] | 11 (24) | 20 (28) | 19 (24) | 53 (45) | 35 (29) | 138 (32) |
No. of participants with misleading or wrong information [n (%)] | 8 (18) | 11 (15) | 35 (44) | 15 (13) | 14 (12) | 83 (19) |
Results on structural requirements for test enquiry (max. 10) | ||||||
No. of fulfilled structural requirements [median (range)] | 7 (1–10) | 8 (2–10) | 8 (2–9) | 8 (2–10) | 9 (2–10) | 8 (1–10) |
Length of answer appropriate [n (%)] | 27 (60) | 41 (58) | 54 (68) | 78 (66) | 84 (69) | 284 (65) |
No. of answers with named references [n (%)] | 36 (80) | 59 (83) | 77 (97) | 110 (93) | 115 (94) | 397 (91) |
No. of answers with trackable references [n (%)] | 21 (47) | 50 (70) | 53 (67) | 98 (81) | 107 (88) | 327 (75) |
No. of answers presenting conclusion/recommendation [n (%)] | 27 (60) | 40 (56) | 63 (80) | 70 (59) | 107 (88) | 307 (71) |
Parameter | Coefficient | OR | 95% CI | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
A: All essential information presented | ||||
Year 2017 | 1.45 | 4.28 | 0.98–18.6 | 0.05 |
Year 2018 | −1.40 | 0.25 | 0.11–0.56 | <0.01 |
Year 2019 | 2.10 | 8.19 | 2.69–24.9 | <0.01 |
Year 2020 | 0.69 | 1.99 | 0.92–4.31 | 0.08 |
Year 2021 | −3.13 | 0.04 | 0.01–0.11 | <0.01 |
DI center | reference | - | - | - |
Pharmacist responsible per day | −0.29 | 0.74 | 0.21–2.67 | 0.65 |
DI in addition to routine tasks | −1.04 | 0.35 | 0.15–0.83 | 0.02 |
No. of Pharmacists | 0.01 | 1.01 | 0.94–1.06 | 0.88 |
Experience in DI | −0.09 | 0.91 | 0.72–1.15 | 0.43 |
Second look | 0.38 | 1.47 | 0.84–2.56 | 0.17 |
Experience on ward | −0.15 | 0.86 | 0.45–1.62 | 0.64 |
Documentation system | −0.01 | 0.99 | 0.54–1.80 | 0.98 |
B: Percentage of essential information fulfilled | ||||
Year 2017 | 0.86 | 2.38 | 2.13–2.65 | <0.01 |
Year 2018 | −0.03 | 0.96 | 0.89–1.04 | 0.34 |
Year 2019 | 0.13 | 1.15 | 1.07–1.23 | <0.01 |
Year 2020 | 0.08 | 1.08 | 1.01–1.15 | 0.02 |
Year 2021 | −0.15 | 0.86 | 0.80–0.91 | <0.01 |
DI center | Reference | - | - | - |
Pharmacist responsible per day | −0.02 | 0.97 | 0.89–1.06 | 0.57 |
DI in addition to routine tasks | −0.06 | 0.93 | 0.89–0.99 | 0.04 |
No of Pharmacists | 0.01 | 1.00 | 0.99–1.01 | 0.58 |
Experience DI | −0.01 | 0.99 | 0.98–1.01 | 0.68 |
Second look | 0.01 | 1.01 | 0.97–1.05 | 0.58 |
Experience on ward | −0.01 | 0.99 | 0.95–1.56 | 0.80 |
Documentation system | 0.01 | 1.00 | 0.96–1.04 | 0.98 |
Parameter | Coefficient | OR | 95% CI | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
A: References given | ||||
Year 2017 | 1.57 | 4.82 | 0.34–67.2 | 0.24 |
Year 2018 | 0.31 | 1.36 | 0.48–3.81 | 0.56 |
Year 2019 | 2.40 | 10.99 | 2.13–56.7 | <0.01 |
Year 2020 | 1.45 | 4.27 | 1.42–7.33 | <0.01 |
Year 2021 | 1.68 | 5.39 | 1.63–17.8 | <0.01 |
DI center | reference | - | - | - |
Pharmacist responsible per day | −3.15 | 0.04 | 0.01–0.45 | <0.01 |
DI in addition to routine tasks | −2.04 | 0.13 | 0.01–1.15 | 0.07 |
No of Pharmacists | 0.03 | 1.03 | 0.92–1.15 | 0.61 |
Experience DI | 0.20 | 1.22 | 0.89–1.66 | 0.21 |
Second look | 0.68 | 1.97 | 0.91–4.29 | 0.09 |
Experience on ward | 0.74 | 2.09 | 0.94–2.29 | 0.07 |
Documentation system | 0.08 | 1.08 | 0.49–2.37 | 0.85 |
B: References given in trackable way | ||||
Year 2017 | −0.93 | 0.39 | 0.10–1.56 | 0.18 |
Year 2018 | 1.06 | 2.89 | 1.30–6.54 | 0.01 |
Year 2019 | 0.86 | 2.36 | 1.05–5.28 | 0.04 |
Year 2020 | 1.65 | 5.19 | 2.34–11.5 | <0.01 |
Year 2021 | 2.13 | 8.45 | 3.52–20.2 | <0.01 |
DI center | reference | - | - | - |
Pharmacist responsible per day | −0.69 | 0.50 | 0.17–1.51 | 0.22 |
DI in addition to routine tasks | −0.26 | 0.77 | 0.33–1.79 | 0.54 |
No of Pharmacists | 0.05 | 1.05 | 0.98–1.12 | 0.11 |
Experience DI | −0.04 | 0.96 | 0.78–1.18 | 0.11 |
Second look | 0.65 | 1.92 | 1.16–3.17 | 0.01 |
Experience on ward | 0.38 | 1.46 | 0.93–2.57 | 0.19 |
Documentation system | 0.26 | 1.30 | 0.76–2.22 | 0.32 |
C: Conclusion presented | ||||
Year 2017 | −0.01 | 0.99 | 0.26–3.71 | 0.98 |
Year 2018 | −0.19 | 0.82 | 0.37–4.07 | 0.64 |
Year 2019 | 1.00 | 2.72 | 1.55–6.46 | 0.02 |
Year 2020 | −0.01 | 0.99 | 0.43–2.09 | 0.98 |
Year 2021 | 1.52 | 4.59 | 1.94–10.86 | <0.01 |
DI center | Reference | - | - | - |
Pharmacist responsible per day | −0.58 | 0.56 | 0.18–1.71 | 0.31 |
DI in addition to routine tasks | −0.58 | 0.56 | 0.25–1.24 | 0.15 |
No of Pharmacists | 0.06 | 1.06 | 1.01–1.13 | 0.04 |
Experience DI | 0.16 | 1.17 | 0.96–1.42 | 0.11 |
Second look | 0.39 | 1.47 | 0.92–2.36 | 0.11 |
Experience on ward | −0.45 | 0.64 | 0.36–1.12 | 0.11 |
Documentation system | 0.22 | 1.24 | 0.75–2.05 | 0.39 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Strobach, D.; Chiriac, U.; Klausner, S.; Krebs, S.; Langebrake, C.; Querbach, C.; Schuhmacher, C.; Schulte, R.; Wiegrebe, S.; Amann, U. Factors Determining Quality of Drug Information by Hospital Pharmacies—Results from Five-Year Annual Quality Assessment. Pharmacy 2024, 12, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040109
Strobach D, Chiriac U, Klausner S, Krebs S, Langebrake C, Querbach C, Schuhmacher C, Schulte R, Wiegrebe S, Amann U. Factors Determining Quality of Drug Information by Hospital Pharmacies—Results from Five-Year Annual Quality Assessment. Pharmacy. 2024; 12(4):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040109
Chicago/Turabian StyleStrobach, Dorothea, Ute Chiriac, Sigrun Klausner, Sabine Krebs, Claudia Langebrake, Christiane Querbach, Carolin Schuhmacher, Rickmer Schulte, Simon Wiegrebe, and Ute Amann. 2024. "Factors Determining Quality of Drug Information by Hospital Pharmacies—Results from Five-Year Annual Quality Assessment" Pharmacy 12, no. 4: 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040109
APA StyleStrobach, D., Chiriac, U., Klausner, S., Krebs, S., Langebrake, C., Querbach, C., Schuhmacher, C., Schulte, R., Wiegrebe, S., & Amann, U. (2024). Factors Determining Quality of Drug Information by Hospital Pharmacies—Results from Five-Year Annual Quality Assessment. Pharmacy, 12(4), 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040109