Expert Consensus on a List of Inappropriate Prescribing after Prescription Review in Pediatric Units in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.

IF 2.1 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice Pub Date : 2021-08-27 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.2147/IPRP.S322141
Elisée Doffou, Christelle Avi, Kouassi Christian Yao, Danho Pascal Abrogoua
{"title":"Expert Consensus on a List of Inappropriate Prescribing after Prescription Review in Pediatric Units in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.","authors":"Elisée Doffou,&nbsp;Christelle Avi,&nbsp;Kouassi Christian Yao,&nbsp;Danho Pascal Abrogoua","doi":"10.2147/IPRP.S322141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Inappropriate prescribing (IP) includes inappropriate prescription and omission of prescription. IP can adversely affect the quality of health care in pediatric units. A list of IP taking into account frequently encountered drug-related problems (DRPs) can be useful to optimize prescriptions in pediatrics. The aim of this study was to validate by expert consensus a list of IP after a prescription review in pediatric units in Abidjan.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A list of IPs was developed from a prescription review of inpatients and outpatients aged 1 month to 15 years and followed in pediatric units at teaching hospitals of Abidjan during 16 months. A two-round Delphi method was used to validate a qualitative list of IPs by experts according to their level of agreement on a six-point Likert scale of 0-5 (0, no opinion; 5, strongly agree). Only propositions obtaining the agreement (rating 4 or 5) of >70% of experts who gave a non-zero rating for the first round and 80% for the second round were retained.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A qualitative list of 54 IPs was drawn up from 267 DRPs detected after prescription review of 4,992 prescription lines for 881 patients. Our panel comprised 22 pediatricians (96%) and one clinical pharmacist (4%). Mean agreement ratings were 4.43/5 (95% CI 4.39-4.48) and 4.6/5 (95% CI 4.56-4.64), respectively, during the first Delphi round and the second (<i>p</i><0.001). At the end of the first round, all items submitted (54) were retained, including 13 items that had been reworded. In the second round, 20 experts participated and two IPs (4%) were not retained for the final list. This list comprised 52 IPs (44 inappropriate prescriptions and eight omissions of prescription).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The list of IP validated in this study should help in the detection of DRPs and optimize prescriptions in pediatric units in Côte d'Ivoire.</p>","PeriodicalId":45655,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c8/4c/iprp-10-79.PMC8407673.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/IPRP.S322141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Inappropriate prescribing (IP) includes inappropriate prescription and omission of prescription. IP can adversely affect the quality of health care in pediatric units. A list of IP taking into account frequently encountered drug-related problems (DRPs) can be useful to optimize prescriptions in pediatrics. The aim of this study was to validate by expert consensus a list of IP after a prescription review in pediatric units in Abidjan.

Materials and methods: A list of IPs was developed from a prescription review of inpatients and outpatients aged 1 month to 15 years and followed in pediatric units at teaching hospitals of Abidjan during 16 months. A two-round Delphi method was used to validate a qualitative list of IPs by experts according to their level of agreement on a six-point Likert scale of 0-5 (0, no opinion; 5, strongly agree). Only propositions obtaining the agreement (rating 4 or 5) of >70% of experts who gave a non-zero rating for the first round and 80% for the second round were retained.

Results: A qualitative list of 54 IPs was drawn up from 267 DRPs detected after prescription review of 4,992 prescription lines for 881 patients. Our panel comprised 22 pediatricians (96%) and one clinical pharmacist (4%). Mean agreement ratings were 4.43/5 (95% CI 4.39-4.48) and 4.6/5 (95% CI 4.56-4.64), respectively, during the first Delphi round and the second (p<0.001). At the end of the first round, all items submitted (54) were retained, including 13 items that had been reworded. In the second round, 20 experts participated and two IPs (4%) were not retained for the final list. This list comprised 52 IPs (44 inappropriate prescriptions and eight omissions of prescription).

Conclusion: The list of IP validated in this study should help in the detection of DRPs and optimize prescriptions in pediatric units in Côte d'Ivoire.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

专家对阿比让儿科单位处方审查后不适当处方清单的共识,Côte科特迪瓦。
处方不当包括处方不当和处方遗漏。知识产权会对儿科医疗质量产生不利影响。考虑到经常遇到的药物相关问题(DRPs)的知识产权清单可用于优化儿科处方。本研究的目的是在阿比让儿科单位进行处方审查后,通过专家共识来验证知识产权清单。材料和方法:根据对1个月至15岁的住院和门诊患者的处方审查,并在阿比让教学医院儿科病房随访16个月,制定了一份治疗方案清单。采用两轮德尔菲法,根据专家在0-5分李克特量表(0,无意见;5、强烈同意)。只有在第一轮和第二轮中分别获得超过70%的非零评分专家和80%的非零评分专家的同意(评分4或5)的命题才被保留。结果:通过对881例患者4992条处方线的处方审查,从检测到的267个DRPs中,得出了54个IPs的定性清单。我们的小组由22名儿科医生(96%)和1名临床药剂师(4%)组成。在第一轮和第二轮德尔菲中,平均同意评分分别为4.43/5 (95% CI 4.39-4.48)和4.6/5 (95% CI 4.56-4.64)。结论:本研究验证的IP列表有助于Côte科特迪瓦儿科单位检测DRPs和优化处方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
3.40%
发文量
29
审稿时长
16 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信