An Assessment of Prescribing Using Drug Utilization Review Criteria

1982 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 930-934 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis K. Helling ◽  
G. Joseph Norwood ◽  
John D. Donner

Drug utilization review screening criteria were applied to a sample of 30000 prescriptions written by Iowa physicians. Characteristics of the physicians who had high percentages of prescriptions violating the explicit criteria were examined. It was found that the proportion of prescriptions failing the screening criteria did not differ significantly among physicians of differing board certification groups, medical school of graduation, year of graduation from medical school, age, or size of town where the physicians practiced. Regardless of the physicians' demographic characteristics, approximately 50 percent of their prescriptions violated the prescribing criteria. The three categories of screening criteria included irrational mixture, quantity prescribed, and daily dosage. An analysis of the relationship between physician ratings obtained for each of the categories revealed that no relationship existed between a physician's quantity prescribed rating and daily dosage rating, or between a physician's irrational mixture rating and daily dosage rating. A negative relationship was found between a physician's quantity prescribed rating and irrational mixture rating. This tends to indicate that the three categories measure different prescribing patterns and each warrants respective monitoring by pharmacists.

1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 202-208
Author(s):  
Isabelle Chabot ◽  
Johanne Morin ◽  
Kateri Bourbeau ◽  
Jocelyne Moisan

Objective: To compare the appropriateness of omeprazole prescriptions in a concurrent drug utilization review (DUR) with the assessed appropriateness of a retrospective DUR. Methods: A retrospective DUR of omeprazole was conducted on prescriptions written from August 23, 1993, to October 8, 1993, in a 340-bed university hospital. This DUR served as a baseline for a concurrent DUR that began on January 27, 1995, and ended on March 16, 1995. The concurrent DUR integrated three steps aimed at improving the quality of omeprazole use: Approval of the criteria by the pharmacology and therapeutics committee of the hospital, distribution of a drug bulletin to all physicians, and a pharmacist's verbal recommendations to physicians whose prescriptions did not meet explicit criteria. Results: Twenty-nine and 64 prescriptions were reviewed in the retrospective and concurrent DURs, respectively. During the concurrent DUR, the pharmacist made 34 verbal recommendations. Of these, 25 (74%) were agreed to by the prescribers. In comparison with the retrospective DUR, the percentage of prescriptions meeting the criteria of indication, combination therapy, and dosage went from 38% to 75% (p < 0.05), from 76% to 95% (p < 0.05), and from 83% to 100% (p > 0.05), respectively, during the concurrent DUR. Conclusions: The concurrent DUR appeared to successfully improve the quality of omeprazole utilization in the hospital.


1991 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 626-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Craig Brater ◽  
Darrell R Abernethy ◽  
Beth Benedict ◽  
W Gary Erwin ◽  
Timothy Franson ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
pp. 389-392
Author(s):  
Kiranjit Luther ◽  
Guang Mei Fung ◽  
Farah Khorassani

Purpose: Paliperidone and risperidone are atypical antipsychotics that are structurally and therapeutically similar. Risperidone is metabolized by the liver via cytochrome (CYP) 2D6 to an active metabolite, 9-hydroxyrisperidone. The atypical antipsychotic paliperidone is 9-hydroxyrisperidone formulated separately as an extended-release (ER) tablet and is considerably more expensive than risperidone. The purpose of this retrospective drug utilization review is to evaluate the prescribing patterns of paliperidone ER and evaluate potential cost savings by converting paliperidone ER orders to risperidone at an inpatient psychiatric hospital’s formulary. Methods: This retrospective drug utilization review includes 100 patients, older than 18 years old, who were prescribed oral paliperidone ER at an inpatient, psychiatric hospital between January 1, 2017, and June 2, 2017. The data were collected through the electronic medical records. Patients who were prescribed oral paliperidone ER and refused to take paliperidone ER were excluded from the study population. The cost of each patient’s oral paliperidone ER pharmacotherapy was calculated using average wholesale prices. An equivalent total dose of risperidone therapy was calculated using a 2:3 paliperidone ER to risperidone conversion. The cost savings were then analyzed by comparing the total costs of paliperidone ER with risperidone therapy. Results: The results indicate that from January through June 2017, approximately 68% of all paliperidone ER utilization was for its approved indication of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. The other 32% of utilization was either off-label or for approved indications of risperidone. The total paliperidone ER therapy cost for 100 patients was approximately $17 000, while the cost of risperidone therapy would be approximately $400 for the same patients over 6 months. Overall, this would provide an estimated cost savings of over $33 000 per year or about $169 in savings per patient. Conclusion: The study analysis demonstrates that there are opportunities for cost savings through therapeutic interchange of paliperidone ER to risperidone.


JAMA ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 280 (14) ◽  
pp. 1249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Monane ◽  
Dipika M. Matthias ◽  
Becky A. Nagle ◽  
Miriam A. Kelly

1976 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 222-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Knoben

Drug utilization is expected to increase in the years ahead, thereby fostering the use of cost control and quality assurance mechanisms in the form of drug utilization/peer review. An overview of the current status of drug utilization review (DUR) is presented, and an examination is made in terms of the relationship of DUR to assuring quality medical care. For the most part, existing drug utilization review systems are centrally based and retrospectively screen drug claims “by exception”, using quantity standards of appropriateness. The primary deficiency of current programs is the relative lack of “quality measures”, and secondarily, the need to integrate drug utilization review into the overall medical care review process. Recommendations for demonstration and research efforts are given.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 520-525
Author(s):  
Vasudha Gupta ◽  
Jamie Woodyard ◽  
Kimberley Begley ◽  
Stacey Curtis ◽  
Deanna Tran

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document