AIM: To evaluate the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) classification system as a tool for documenting the impact of a hospital clinical pharmacology service. SETTING: Two medical wards comprising totally 85 beds in a university hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Number of events classified with the PCNE-system, their acceptance by the medical staff and cost implications. METHODS: Clinical pharmacy review of pharmacotherapy on ward rounds and from case notes were documented, and identified drug-related problems (DRPs) were classified using the PCNE system version 5.00. RESULTS: During 70 observation days 216 interventions were registered of which 213 (98.6%) could be classified: 128 (60.1%) were detected by reviewing the case notes, 33 (15.5%) on ward rounds, 32 (15.0%) by direct reporting to the clinical pharmacist (CP), and 20 (9.4%) on non-formulary prescriptions. Of 148 suggested interventions by the CP 123 (83.0%) were approved by the responsible physician, 12 ADR reports (8.1%) were submitted to the local pharmacovigilance centre and 31 (20.9%) specific information given without further need for action. An evaluation of the DRPs showed that direct drug costs of <euro>2,058 within the study period or <euro>10,731 per year could be avoided. CONCLUSION: We consider the PCNE system to be a practical tool in the hospital setting, which demonstrates the values of a clinical pharmacy service in terms of identifying and reducing DRPs and also has the potential to reduce prescribing costs.
AIM: To evaluate the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) classification system as a tool for documenting the impact of a hospital clinical pharmacology service. SETTING: Two medical wards comprising totally 85 beds in a university hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Number of events classified with the PCNE-system, their acceptance by the medical staff and cost implications. METHODS: Clinical pharmacy review of pharmacotherapy on ward rounds and from case notes were documented, and identified drug-related problems (DRPs) were classified using the PCNE system version 5.00. RESULTS: During 70 observation days 216 interventions were registered of which 213 (98.6%) could be classified: 128 (60.1%) were detected by reviewing the case notes, 33 (15.5%) on ward rounds, 32 (15.0%) by direct reporting to the clinical pharmacist (CP), and 20 (9.4%) on non-formulary prescriptions. Of 148 suggested interventions by the CP 123 (83.0%) were approved by the responsible physician, 12 ADR reports (8.1%) were submitted to the local pharmacovigilance centre and 31 (20.9%) specific information given without further need for action. An evaluation of the DRPs showed that direct drug costs of <euro>2,058 within the study period or <euro>10,731 per year could be avoided. CONCLUSION: We consider the PCNE system to be a practical tool in the hospital setting, which demonstrates the values of a clinical pharmacy service in terms of identifying and reducing DRPs and also has the potential to reduce prescribing costs.
Authors: Glen T Schumock; Melissa G Butler; Patrick D Meek; Lee C Vermeulen; Bhakti V Arondekar; Jerry L Bauman Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: S T McMullin; J A Hennenfent; D J Ritchie; W Y Huey; T P Lonergan; R A Schaiff; M E Tonn; T C Bailey Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 1999-10-25
Authors: Anita Krähenbühl-Melcher; Raymond Schlienger; Markus Lampert; Manuel Haschke; Jürgen Drewe; Stephan Krähenbühl Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Rebekka Lenssen; Axel Heidenreich; Jörg B Schulz; Christian Trautwein; Christina Fitzner; Ulrich Jaehde; Albrecht Eisert Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2015-10-28