Journal of Education and Health Promotion

Evaluation of pharmacy information system in teaching, private and social services Hospitals in 2011

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

. Sakineh Saghaeiannejad-Isfahani
. Razieh Mirzaeian 1
. Hasan Jannesari 2
. Asghar Ehteshami 3
. Awat Feizi 4
. Ahmadreza Raeisi 5

1 Deputy of Research and Technology, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran

2 Department in Noor and Ali Asqar Hospitals, Isfahan

3 Department of Health Information Technology, School of Health Management and Information Sciences

4 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health

5 Health Management and Economics Research Centre, Department of Health Information Technology, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Abstract
Objective: Supporting a therapeutic approach and medication therapy management, the
pharmacy information system (PIS) acts as one of the pillars of hospital information system.
This ensures that medication therapy is being supported with an optimal level of safety and
quality similar to other treatments and services. Materials and Methods: The present study
is an applied, cross‑sectional study conducted on the PIS in use in selected hospitals. The
research population included all users of PIS. The research sample is the same as the research
population. The data collection instrument was the self‑designed checklist developed from the
guidelines of the American Society of Health System Pharmacists, Australia pharmaceutical
Society and Therapeutic guidelines of the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association.
The checklist validity was assessed by research supervisors and PIS users and pharmacists.
Findings: The findings of this study were revealed that regarding the degree of meeting the
standards given in the guidelines issued by the Society of Pharmacists, the highest rank in
observing input standards belonged to Social Services hospitals with a mean score of 32.75.
Although teaching hospitals gained the highest score both in process standards with a mean
score of 29.15 and output standards with a mean score of 43.95, the private hospitals had the
lowest mean score of 23.32, 17.78, 24.25 in input, process and output standards, respectively.
Conclusion: Based on the findings, it can be claimed that the studied hospitals had a minimal
compliance with the input, output and processing standards related to the PIS.

Keywords

Clinical pharmacy information system
evaluation
information system
pharmacy
1. Anoye BA. The effectiveness of ISO 9000 Quality Management
System in Health Care: A mixed methods study 2008. Dissertation.
Indiana: University of West Lafayette; 2008. p. 3. [Last accessed on
2011 Oct 09].
2. An Industry Information Framework for the Pharmaceutical Supply
Chain. VeriSign, 2006. p. 3‑8. Available from: http://www.verisign.
com/static/040033.pdf. [Last accessed on 2011 Jul 04].
3. Swanson Kazley A, Diana ML. Hospital computerized provider order
entry adoption and quality: An examination of the United States.
Health Care Manage Rev 2011;36:86‑94.
4. American Society Health System Pharmacists. American: The
Association; c1997‑2012. Policy Position: Automation and
Information Technology, 2009. Available from: http://www.ashp.
org. [Last accessed on 2011 May 8; Last update on 2011 Jun 1].
5. Duffy WJ, Kharasch MS, Du H. Point of care documentation impact
on the nurse-patient interaction. Nurs Adm Q. 2010;34:E1-10.
6. Wolper LF. Health Care Administration Planning, Implementing
and Managing organized Delivery System. 5th ed. USA: Jones and
Barlett, Publishers; 2011.
7. American Society of Health System Pharmacists. Formulary
management. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:132‑46.
8. Manno M, Hogan P, Heberlein V, Nyakiti J, Cheryl L. Patient‑safety
survey report: Supported by an education grant from B. Braun Med
2006;36:54‑63.
9. Carleton B, Foester V, Warren L, Smith MA. Post‑maketing pharmaco
surveillance in Canada, a background paper prepared for the
working conference on strengthening the evaluation of real world
drug safety and effectiveness 2005. p. 6‑33.
10. Mahoney CD, Berard‑Collins CM, Coleman R, Amaral JF, Cotter CM.
Effects of an integrated clinical information system on medication
safety in a multi‑hospital setting. Am J Health Syst Pharm
2007;64:1969‑77.
11. Schiff GD, Klass D, Peterson J, Shah G, Bates DW. Linking laboratory
and pharmacy: Opportunities for reducing errors and improving
care. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:893‑900.
12. Karapinar F, van den Bemt PM, Zoer J, Nijpels G, Borgsteede SD.
Informational needs of general practitioners regarding discharge
medication: Content, timing and pharmacotherapeutic advice.
Pharm World Sci 2010;32:172‑8.
13. Burgess LH, Cohen MR, Denham CR. A new leadership role for
pharmacists: A prescription for change. J Patient Saf 2010;6:31‑7.
14. Kirschenbaum BE. Specialty pharmacies and other restricted
drug distribution systems: Financial and safety considerations for
patients and health‑system pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm
2009;66:S13‑20.
15. Lassetter JH, Warnick ML. Medical errors, drug‑related problems,
and medication errors: A literature review on quality of care and cost issues. J Nurs Care Qual 2003;18:175‑81.
16. Armitage G, Newell RJ, Wright J. Reporting drug errors in a British
acute hospital trust. Clin Gov 2007;12:102‑10.
17. Alsultan MS, Khurshid F, Salamah HJ, Mayet AY, Al‑Jedai AH.
Hospital pharmacy practice in Saudi Arabia: Prescribing and
transcribing in the Riyadh region. Saudi Pharm J 2012;20:203‑10.
18. Danielson E. Evaluating the impact of implementing clinical
information systems. Dissertation. Utah: University of Utah; 2006.
19. Alwan MA. Evaluation of pharmacist work activities before and after
implementation of computerized provider order entry. Dissertation.
University of Utah; 2010. Available from: http://www.elsevier.com/
Dissertation/title/a [Last accessed on 2011 Feb 12].
20. Warholak TL, Murcko A, McKee M, Urbine T. Results of the Arizona
Medicaid health information technology pharmacy focus groups.
Res Social Adm Pharm 2011;7:438‑43.
21. American Society of Health System pharmacists. American:
The Association; c1997‑2012. Policy Position and Guideline.
Available from: http://www.ashp.org/menu/practicepolicy/
policypositionsGuidelineBestPractices.asp. [Last Update on
2011June 01].
22. Sansom LN. Australian pharmaceutical formulary and hand book.
21st ed. canberra: Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, Section D:
Clinically important drug interaction 2009:280-416.
23. Berthold HK, Lasek R, Muller-Oerlinghausen B, et al. Presence of
Therapeutic Guidelines of the Durg Commission of the German Medical
Association (DCGMA) with German Family Physcians.Abstracts of the
7th Annual Congress of Clinical Pharmcology 2005;61:688-689.
24. Vasserman L. All of Nonparametric Statistics. 2nded.: Springer Texts
in Statistics. Library of congress control Number: 2005925603
Available from: http://books.google.com/books.
25. Collignon U, Oborne CA, Kostrzewski A. Pharmacy services to UK
emergency departments: A descriptive study. Pharm World Sci
2010;32:90‑6.
26. Nazzaro JT, Beary JF 3rd. Benefits of a computerized pharmacy.
JAMA 1983;249:3302‑3.
27. Malone DC, Abarca J, Skrepnek GH, Murphy JE, Armstrong EP,
Grizzle AJ, et al. Pharmacist workload and pharmacy characteristics
associated with the dispensing of potentially clinically important
drug‑drug interactions. Med Care 2007;45:456‑62.
28. Walker PC, Bernstein SJ, Jones JN, Piersma J, Kim HW, Regal RE,
et al. Impact of a pharmacist‑facilitated hospital discharge program:
A quasi‑experimental study. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2003‑10.
Journal of Education and Health Promotion
Volume 4, Issue 2
Spring 2014
Pages 1-6

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us