Expert Consensus on a List of Inappropriate Prescribing after Prescription Review in Pediatric Units in Abidjan, Cote d'lvoire
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 prescri...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Integrated pharmacy research and practice 2021-08, Vol.10, p.79 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | 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 sixpoint 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 4.56-14.64), respectively, during the first Delphi round and the second (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2230-5254 2230-5254 |
DOI: | 10.2147/IPRP.S322141 |