Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Doffou, Elisée, Avi, Christelle, Yao, Kouassi Christian, Abrogoua, Danho Pascal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8407673/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34476206
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IPRP.S322141
Descripción
Sumario: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.