Introduction Identifying patients with a high risk for drug-related problems (DRPs) might optimise the allocation of targeted pharmaceutical care during the hospital stay and on discharge. Objective To develop a self-assessment screening tool to identify patients at risk for DRPs and validate the tool regarding feasibility, acceptability and the reliability of the patients’ answers. Design Prospective validation study. Setting Two mid-sized hospitals (300–400 beds). Participants 195 patients, exclusion criteria: under 18 years old, patients with a health status not allowing a meaningful communication (eg, delirium, acute psychosis, advanced dementia, aphasia, clouded consciousness state), palliative or terminally ill patients. Methods Twenty-seven risk factors for the development of DRPs, identified in a previous study, provided the basis of the self-assessment questionnaire, the Drug-Associated Risk Tool (DART). Consenting patients filled in DART, and we compared their answers with objective patient data from medical records and laboratory data. Results One hundred and sixty-four patients filled in DART V.1.0 in an average time of 7 min. After a first validation, we identified statements with a low sensitivity and revised the wording of the questions related to heart insufficiency, renal impairment or liver impairment. The revised DART (V.2.0) was validated in 31 patients presenting heart insufficiency, renal impairment or liver impairment as comorbidity and reached an average specificity of 88% (range 27–100) and an average sensitivity of 67% (range 21–100). Conclusions DART showed a satisfying feasibility and reliability. The specificity of the statements was mostly high. The sensitivity varied and was higher in statements concerning diseases that require regular disease control and attention to self-care and drug management. Asking patients about their conditions, medications and related problems can facilitate getting a first, broad picture of the risk for DRPs and possible pharmaceutical needs.

Genetic predisposition is one factor influencing interindividual drug response. Pharmacogenetic information can be used to guide the selection and dosing of certain drugs. However, the implementation of pharmacogenetics (PGx) in clinical practice remains challenging. Defining a formal structure, as well as concrete procedures and clearly defined responsibilities, may facilitate and increase the use of PGx in clinical practice. Over 140 patient cases from an observational study in Switzerland formed the basis for the design and refinement of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetics testing and counselling service (PGx service) in an interprofessional setting. Herein, we defined a six-step approach, including: (1) patient referral; (2) pre-test-counselling; (3) PGx testing; (4) medication review; (5) counselling; (6) follow-up. The six-step approach supports the importance of an interprofessional collaboration and the role of pharmacists in PGx testing and counselling across healthcare settings.

Background: Patient counselling and addressing drug-related problems are the pharmacist’s key activities to ensure the safe and effective use of medicines. This study aimed to describe the dispensing practice of prescribed medicines in daily community pharmacy practice and to identify factors influencing counselling provision; Methods: An observational study was conducted in community pharmacies in Basel, Switzerland. One master student in pharmacy performed non-participatory observations for one day at each of the participating community pharmacies. Patient characteristics, counselling content, additional activities, and pharmaceutical interventions were documented on a structured checklist; Results: 556 prescription encounters (PE) in 18 participating community pharmacies were observed (269 first prescriptions; 287 refill prescriptions). Patients were regular customers (n = 523, 94.1%) and 53.8 ± 23.4 years old. Counselling was provided to 367 (66.0%) customers on 2.9 ± 3.1 themes per PE. Factors influencing counselling were dispensing by the pharmacist, new customer, customer who did not refuse counselling, customer with a first prescription, with a prescription resulting in a pharmaceutical intervention, and a prescription filled by carers. During 144 PEs, 203 interventions were documented. Pharmacists proposed few additional activities and performed no cognitive pharmaceutical service; Conclusions: Our study quantified counselling and additional services at the dispensing of prescribed medicines and identified influencing factors on counselling provision at the patient, prescription, and pharmacy level.

We report two cases of patients who developed severe adverse drug reactions including persistent movement disorders, nausea, and vertigo during treatment with quetiapine at maximum daily doses ranging between 300 and 400 mg. The extensive hepatic metabolism of quetiapine is mainly attributed to cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4). However, there is recent evidence supporting the idea of CYP2D6 playing a role in the clearance of the quetiapine active metabolite norquetiapine. Interestingly, both patients we are reporting of are carriers of the CYP2D6*4 variant, predicting an intermediate metabolizer phenotype. Additionally, co-medication with a known CYP2D6 inhibitor and renal impairment might have further affected quetiapine pharmacokinetics. The herein reported cases could spark a discussion on the potential impact of a patient’s pharmacogenetic predisposition in the treatment with quetiapine. However, further studies are warranted to promote the adoption of pharmacogenetic testing for the prevention of drug-induced toxicities associated with quetiapine.

There is growing evidence that pharmacogenetic analysis can improve drug therapy for individual patients. In Switzerland, pharmacists are legally authorized to initiate pharmacogenetic tests. However, pharmacogenetic tests are rarely conducted in Swiss pharmacies. Therefore, we aimed to identify implementation strategies that facilitate the integration of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service into clinical practice. To achieve this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with pharmacists and physicians regarding the implementation process of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service. We utilized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify potential facilitators and barriers in the implementation process. Additionally, we employed Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to identify strategies mentioned in the interviews and used the CFIR-ERIC matching tool to identify additional strategies. We obtained interview responses from nine pharmacists and nine physicians. From these responses, we identified 7 CFIR constructs as facilitators and 12 as barriers. Some of the most commonly mentioned barriers included unclear procedures, lack of cost coverage by health care insurance, insufficient pharmacogenetics knowledge, lack of interprofessional collaboration, communication with the patient, and inadequate e-health technologies. Additionally, we identified 23 implementation strategies mentioned by interviewees using ERIC and 45 potential strategies using the CFIR-ERIC matching tool. In summary, we found that significant barriers hinder the implementation process of this new service. We hope that by highlighting potential implementation strategies, we can advance the integration of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service in Switzerland.