4.2 Article

Drug-related problems in medical wards with a computerized physician order entry system

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS
Volume 34, Issue 2, Pages 187-195

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2008.00990.x

Keywords

clinical pharmacist; computerized physician order entry; drug-related problems; pharmacoepidemiology

Funding

  1. Ludovic Chavanel

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Identification and estimation, by clinical pharmacists participating in routine medical rounds, of drug-related problems (DRPs), arising despite the use of a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system. Methods: An 18-month prospective study of DRPs through a CPOE was conducted by seven clinical pharmacists participating in ward activity. DRPs were identified by two independent pharmacists using a structured order review (French Society of Clinical Pharmacy instrument). Results: A total of 29 016 medication orders relating to 8152 patients were analysed, and 2669 DRPs, involving 1564 patients (56% female; mean age 72.6 years), were identified representing 33 DRPs per 100 admissions. The most commonly identified DRPs were non-conformity to guidelines or contra-indication (29.5%), improper administration (19.6%), drug interaction (16.7%) and overdosage (12.8%). There were 429 different drugs associated with these DRPs. Cardiovascular drugs were the most frequently implicated (22.2%), followed by antibiotics/antiinfectives (13.3%) and anal gesics/antiinflammatory drugs (11.3%). Different types of DRPs were closely associated with specific classes of drugs. Conclusions: Drug-related problems are common even after implementation of CPOE. In this context, routine participation of clinical pharmacists in clinical medical rounds may facilitate identification of DRPs. Pharmacists should be able to enhance patient safety through such involvement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available