The drug information centre in 2015 – still a valid concept?

Abstract

The drug iNformaTioN CeNTre iN 2015 – STill a Valid CoNCepT? L.A. Reppe; J. Schjott; and O. Spigset Nord-Trondelag University College, Steinkjer, Norway; Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; and St. Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway Educational Objectives: Participants should be able to identify factors that may increase and/or decrease the quality of DICs’ written responses. Purpose: To assess the quality of written responses to drug-related queries, in order to identify factors increasing and/or decreasing their quality. Methods: During an 8-week period in 2013, 6 drug-related study queries were posed simultaneously by e-mail to 7 Scandinavian DICs. The DICs were informed about the study, but staff members were blinded in terms of which queries were study queries, as the study queries were sent from local general practitioners in their own names. Six general practitioners (external experts) and seven clinical pharmacologists (internal experts) assessed the responses individually using a registry form allowing qualitative assessment. Results: Responses were generally concordant in terms of professional content, but varied in terms of quality of references, advice and conclusions. In total, internal and external experts gave 334 comments. With 3 to 4 exceptions, the 42 responses were assessed as satisfactorily to good. Both expert groups were concerned with whether specific conclusions and/or advices were given, especially in patient-specific queries. Use of secondary and tertiary sources as references, as opposed to primary sources, was criticised by some experts. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study using qualitative data to identify factors increasing and/or decreasing the quality of DICs’ responses. The presentation of specific advices and conclusions seem to be especially important when responding to drug-related queries. The study has prompted discussions about quality of the written responses in the participating DICs, and the results may also attain a more general interest.