抄録
Objective : To evaluate the necessity to complement the information obtained from pharmacists in the community pharmacy by that from the hospital pharmacy in Prescription-Event Monitoring in Japan (J-PEM) by using data in a J-PEM pilot study.
Methods : For each patient, two questionnaires were sent to the prescribing doctor and the pharmacist who registered the patient ID code in the pilot study. If the patient ID code was registered by the pharmacist in the community pharmacy and if a pharmacist inside the hospital where the prescription was issued was willing to co-operate, a third questionnaire for the same patient was sent to the pharmacist in the hospital pharmacy. The information given by pharmacists was analyzed for 150 pairs of questionnaires (on 150 patients) sent back from pharmacists in both community and hospital pharmacies. The questions in the questionnaire were categorized into [1] those on drugs used by patients (concurrent drugs, daily dose of the drug monitored, and compliance), [2] those on events which the patient had experienced after the prescription of the drug monitored, [3] those on patients (the first date of prescription, reason of prescribing the drug monitored, initial date when the disease developed, underlying diseases or complications and whether and when the patient was lost to follow-up). The questionnaires were examined to determine whether the answer was given to each question. When the answer was given, its quality and quantity were then assessed. The answer to each question given by the pharmacist in the community pharmacy (C) and that by the pharmacist in the hospital pharmacy (H) were compared by the McNemar test after the pairs of answers were classified into the following categories : [1] C is better than H, [2] H is better than C, [3] C and H are similar to each other, and [4] impossible to classify. The difference was considered to be significant where p<0.05.
Results and conclusion : For the initial date when the disease developed and 'underlying diseases or complications', H was significantly better than C. However, for concurrent drugs, compliance and events, C was significantly better than H. Otherwise, the difference was not statistically significant. Being compatible with the superiority of C over H in regard to concurrent drugs and events, the fraction of patients lost to follow-up during the observation period was small not only in H but also in C. This observation may be associated with the fact that almost all prescriptions were issued by a single hospital in more than 60% of community pharmacies in the pilot study, and most patients identified in the study were probably a regular visitor to one of such community pharmacies. The most important information to be provided by the pharmacists in J-PEM is that on events and drugs used by patients. It is thought to be not necessary to complement the information obtained from the community pharmacy by that from the hospital pharmacy.
