PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2508469

Pharmacy-coordinated process for evaluating physician drug prescribing.

Abstract

A pharmacy-coordinated process is described in which the frequency and types of inappropriate drug prescribing are evaluated as part of the medical staff quality assurance and physician credentialing program. A pharmacist intervention program was implemented at an 838-bed private hospital to review all medication orders for appropriateness and to intervene with physicians and nurses when problems in drug prescribing or administration were identified. During a five-year period there were more than 6500 drug therapy interventions. Because of the recurrent problems identified, the medical staff asked the pharmacy department to develop a process for objectively evaluating the quality of prescribing practices that could be used in the medical staff quality assurance program and in physician credentialing. The drug-prescribing activities of physicians applying for clinical privileges are subjected to a "macro" review by using a computerized clinical financial information system to extract drug-use information from patients' bills. In a "micro" review, patient records are retrospectively analyzed by Pharm.D. clinical specialists; all medications prescribed by the physician for those patients being evaluated are scrutinized. Appropriate response scores are calculated by dividing the number of appropriate responses by the total responses. The pharmacy department in this hospital has assumed a more active role in patient care through its participation in a process for objectively evaluating the quality of prescribing practices.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C D Peterson, D E Goldberg. 1989. Pharmacy-coordinated process for evaluating physician drug prescribing.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2508469/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10.

OBJECTIVE: Reliability of diagnoses coding is essential for the use of routine data in a national health care system. The present investigation compares reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10 between three groups of coding subjects. METHOD: One hundred and eighteen students coded 15 diagnoses lists, 27 medical managers from hospitals 34 discharge letters, and 13 coding specialists 12 discharge letters. Agreement in principal diagnosis was assessed using Cohen's Kappa and the fraction of coincidences over the number of pairs, agreement for the full set of diagnoses with a previously developed measure p(om). RESULTS: Kappa values were fair (managers) or moderate (coders) for terminal codes with 0.27 and 0.42 (agreement 29.2% versus 46.8%), substantial for the chapter level with 0.71 and 0.72 (agreement 78.3% versus 80.8%). p(om) was lower for the full set of diagnoses than for principal diagnoses, for example in case of managers with 0.21 versus 0.29 for terminal codes. Best results were achieved by students coding diagnoses lists. In summary, the results are remarkably lower than in earlier publications. CONCLUSION: The refinement of the ICD-10 accompanied by innumerous coding rules has established a complex environment that leads to significant uncertainties even for experts. Use of coded data for quality management, health care financing, and health care policy requires a remarkable simplification of ICD-10 to receive a valid image of health care reality.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗