2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-017-0572-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Healthcare professionals’ agreement on clinical relevance of drug-related problems among elderly patients

Abstract: Background Disagreement among healthcare professionals on the clinical relevance of drug-related problems can lead to suboptimal treatment and increased healthcare costs. Elderly patients with chronic non-cancer pain and comorbidity are at increased risk of drug related problems compared to other patient groups due to complex medication regimes and transition of care. Objective To investigate the agreement among healthcare professionals on their classification of clinical relevance of drug-related problems in … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
3
3
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
3
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The moderate degree of consensus among experts was determined with the narrow confidence intervals of Fleiss' kappa coefficients when assessing the impact of DRPs on effectiveness reduction, safety reduction, and cost increase. This consensus degree was higher than that of previous studies, which had a low consensus level [30,31]. This was because we only differentiated each aspect into two levels (influence or no influence), whereas others differentiated more levels.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 63%
“…The moderate degree of consensus among experts was determined with the narrow confidence intervals of Fleiss' kappa coefficients when assessing the impact of DRPs on effectiveness reduction, safety reduction, and cost increase. This consensus degree was higher than that of previous studies, which had a low consensus level [30,31]. This was because we only differentiated each aspect into two levels (influence or no influence), whereas others differentiated more levels.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 63%
“…These results were in line with Bech et al reported that the panelists agreed moderately in their drug-related problems (DRP) assessments of higher clinical relevance ( κ = 0.5). 12 However, our findings were in contrast to those reported by Bosma et al where the agreement between raters was poor for both the severity error or DRP and the value for service (weighted κ = 0.3 and κ = 0.2; respectively). 36 Similarly, poor overall agreement on the severity of DRP was found among panelists assessing pharmacists’ interventions in elderly patients with chronic non-cancer pain ( κ = 0.12) 12 and patients with rheumatic conditions (κ =0.29).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“… 12 However, our findings were in contrast to those reported by Bosma et al where the agreement between raters was poor for both the severity error or DRP and the value for service (weighted κ = 0.3 and κ = 0.2; respectively). 36 Similarly, poor overall agreement on the severity of DRP was found among panelists assessing pharmacists’ interventions in elderly patients with chronic non-cancer pain ( κ = 0.12) 12 and patients with rheumatic conditions (κ =0.29). 14 Unlike in our study in which the reviewers were clinical pharmacists, these studies involved different professionals in the rating process including an internal medicine specialist, 36 a rheumatologist 14 or a general practitioner.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…According to Bech et al, DRPs with higher clinical relevance require medical consultation or hospital admission, while DRPs with lower clinical relevance can be solved by other health professionals and do not require medical attention, e.g., by pharmacist-provided patient counseling on the correct use of the medicine (23). In this study, most pharmacotherapy problems with higher clinical relevance were those related to prescriptions errors, which required medical consultation to solve them.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%