Clinical pharmacy interventions by community pharmacists during the dispensing process.

AIMS To evaluate the professional contact between the community pharmacist and general practitioner during the dispensing process on issues other than the legality or simple clarification of the prescription. METHODS Fourteen community pharmacists from five adjacent localities completed details of each clinical pharmacy intervention during 1 week of each month for a period of 1 year. Each week of the month was randomly selected. When a community pharmacist had to contact the prescriber, during the dispensing of a prescription, the following data were recorded: brief patient details, the prescribed drug therapy, the reason for intervention, the outcome and the time taken. The main outcome measures were the type and nature of each intervention, the BNF category of the drug involved and the time taken. A multidisciplinary clinical panel assessed the potential of each intervention to alter the outcome of the patient's clinical management and to prevent a drug related hospital admission. These assessments were ranked between 0 and 10 (100% confident). RESULTS During a period covering 1 week per month over 1 year, 1503 clinical pharmacy interventions were made out of 201 000 items dispensed. When normalized for the dispensing volume of each community pharmacy the lower the number of items dispensed then the greater was the percentage of interventions (P=0.013). The clinical panel decided that between 19 (0.01% of the total items dispensed) and 242 (0.12%) interventions may have prevented a drug-related hospital admission, 71 (0.04%) to 483 (0.24%) could have prevented harm whilst 103 (0.05%) to 364 (0.18%) had the potential to improve the efficacy of the intended therapeutic plan. The panel also decided that 748 (0.37%) interventions improved the clinical outcome and could have saved a visit to or by the general practitioner. Conclusion Clinical pharmacy provided by a community pharmacist during the dispensing process has the potential to provide a valuable contribution to health care.

[1]  R Mulroy,et al.  Iatrogenic Disease in General Practice: Its Incidence and Effects , 1973, British medical journal.

[2]  T. Rihn,et al.  Drug-related emergency department visits and hospital admissions. , 1992, American journal of hospital pharmacy.

[3]  R. Stewart,et al.  Drug-induced illness leading to hospitalization. , 1974, JAMA.

[4]  H. Chrystyn,et al.  An investigation of hospital generated pharmaceutical care when patients are discharged home from hospital. , 2003, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[5]  L. Nolan,et al.  Prescribing for the Elderly Part I: Sensitivity of the Elderly to Adverse Drug Reactions * , 1988, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[6]  I. Krass,et al.  Review of computerised patient medication records to determine potential clinical interventions in community pharmacy , 1996 .

[7]  I. C. Wiseman,et al.  Pharmacist intervention in an elderly care facility , 1996 .

[8]  C. Harris,et al.  The scale of repeat prescribing. , 1996, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[9]  R R Miller,et al.  Hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions. A report from the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program. , 1974, Archives of internal medicine.

[10]  S. Caleo,et al.  Clinical evaluation of community pharmacists' interventions , 1996 .

[11]  A. Zermansky,et al.  Who controls repeats? , 1996, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[12]  N Hurwitz,et al.  Intensive Hospital Monitoring of Adverse Reactions to Drugs , 1969, British medical journal.

[13]  C. Hepler,et al.  Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. , 1990, American journal of hospital pharmacy.

[14]  M T Rupp,et al.  Prescribing Problems and Pharmacist Interventions in Community Practice , 1992, Medical care.