OBJECTIVE: To analyze the current drug-interaction management in Swiss community pharmacies, with a particular focus on electronic systems, and to compare the results with those expressed by German general practitioners in a recent survey. METHODS: Data were collected with a postal questionnaire which was randomly sent to 500 out of 833 community pharmacies in the German part of Switzerland. RESULTS: The response rate was 57.4%, and only 24.7% pharmacists reported that they were confronted less than daily with potential drug interactions. Use of computer software to identify potential drug interactions was widespread in community pharmacies (90.2%), and the software was the primary source of information (81.2 +/- 29.6%). The quality of the interaction software was judged sensitive (identifying all dangerous interactions) by 80.5 +/- 21.5%, but specific (identifying only relevant interactions) by only 38.3 +/- 32%. Pharmacists declared a low override rate (14%) of drug interaction alerts, although unjustified alerts were reported by 60.6 +/- 33.1%. In contrast to general practitioners, pharmacists opted less often for information on the mechanism of the interaction, and more frequently for details for dose adjustment. Both groups complained about deficient information on non-interacting alternatives. CONCLUSION: The information needs of community pharmacists differed considerably from general practitioners, and pharmacists were overwhelmed by inappropriate alerts because of a lack of specificity of their drug-interaction systems. Substantial improvement of drug-interaction software systems is thus required at least in two important aspects, the suppression of inappropriate alerts and the tailoring to the needs of the user.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the current drug-interaction management in Swiss community pharmacies, with a particular focus on electronic systems, and to compare the results with those expressed by German general practitioners in a recent survey. METHODS: Data were collected with a postal questionnaire which was randomly sent to 500 out of 833 community pharmacies in the German part of Switzerland. RESULTS: The response rate was 57.4%, and only 24.7% pharmacists reported that they were confronted less than daily with potential drug interactions. Use of computer software to identify potential drug interactions was widespread in community pharmacies (90.2%), and the software was the primary source of information (81.2 +/- 29.6%). The quality of the interaction software was judged sensitive (identifying all dangerous interactions) by 80.5 +/- 21.5%, but specific (identifying only relevant interactions) by only 38.3 +/- 32%. Pharmacists declared a low override rate (14%) of drug interaction alerts, although unjustified alerts were reported by 60.6 +/- 33.1%. In contrast to general practitioners, pharmacists opted less often for information on the mechanism of the interaction, and more frequently for details for dose adjustment. Both groups complained about deficient information on non-interacting alternatives. CONCLUSION: The information needs of community pharmacists differed considerably from general practitioners, and pharmacists were overwhelmed by inappropriate alerts because of a lack of specificity of their drug-interaction systems. Substantial improvement of drug-interaction software systems is thus required at least in two important aspects, the suppression of inappropriate alerts and the tailoring to the needs of the user.
Authors: R Raschetti; M Morgutti; F Menniti-Ippolito; A Belisari; A Rossignoli; P Longhini; C La Guidara Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Thomas R Fulda; Patricia J Byrns; Susan C Winckler; Michael T Rupp; Michelle A Chui Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) Date: 2002 May-Jun
Authors: Catherine C Peng; Peter A Glassman; Iny R Marks; Curtis Fowler; Brenda Castiglione; Chester B Good Journal: J Manag Care Pharm Date: 2003 Nov-Dec
Authors: Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field; Leslie R Harrold; Jeffrey Rothschild; Kristin Debellis; Andrew C Seger; Cynthia Cadoret; Leslie S Fish; Lawrence Garber; Michael Kelleher; David W Bates Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Annemieke Floor-Schreudering; Arjen F J Geerts; Jeffrey K Aronson; Marcel L Bouvy; Robin E Ferner; Peter A G M De Smet Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Annemieke Floor-Schreudering; Peter A G M De Smet; Henk Buurma; Sonia Amini; Marcel L Bouvy Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Olesya I Zorina; Patrick Haueis; Waldemar Greil; Renate Grohmann; Gerd A Kullak-Ublick; Stefan Russmann Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 5.606