Development of one paediatric and one neonatal formulary list in hospital settings.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to describe the stepwise process towards creating two formulary lists: one for paediatric and one for neonatal patients covering common diseases in hospital settings. METHODS: This study presents the concept for developing a formulary list, namely how to: (1) organize the editorial board, (2) procure drug consumption data and database management, including information on labelling status, dosing options, excipients and problematic adverse events, current guidelines, evidence and price, (3) develop the first edition for the formulary list and formulary manual, and (4) to establish a paediatric sub-committee within the Regional Drug and Therapeutic Committee to maintain and continually develop the two formularies. RESULTS: The total number of drugs was 411 ATC level 5, which covers 1097 unique item numbers prior to the paediatric formulary list, of which 263 item numbers were included in the final list. In neonates, 201 drugs ATC level 5 were evaluated, covering 348 unique item numbers, of which 104 item numbers were included in the final neonatal formulary list. Eighty-eight percent of the included drugs in the paediatric formulary were licensed to children (not specified by age group), 2% were unlicensed in Denmark, and 7% were extemporaneous preparations. For neonates, the percentage was 48%, 4% and 16%, correspondingly. CONCLUSION: The process is time-consuming as studies are lacking and age-appropriate dosage forms and concentrations differ amongst countries. Nevertheless, the process should be somewhat similar between countries, albeit different drugs may be selected for the final formulary lists.

Relationship Between Time Consumption and Quality of Responses to Drug-related Queries: A Study From Seven Drug Information Centers in Scandinavia.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to assess the quality of responses produced by drug information centers (DICs) in Scandinavia, and to study the association between time consumption processing queries and the quality of the responses. METHODS: We posed six identical drug-related queries to seven DICs in Scandinavia, and the time consumption required for processing them was estimated. Clinical pharmacologists (internal experts) and general practitioners (external experts) reviewed responses individually. We used mixed model linear regression analyses to study the associations between time consumption on one hand and the summarized quality scores and the overall impression of the responses on the other hand. FINDINGS: Both expert groups generally assessed the quality of the responses as "satisfactory" to "good." A few responses were criticized for being poorly synthesized and less relevant, of which none were quality-assured using co-signatures. For external experts, an increase in time consumption was statistically significantly associated with a decrease in common quality score (change in score, -0.20 per hour of work; 95% CI, -0.33 to -0.06; P = 0.004), and overall impression (change in score, -0.05 per hour of work; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01; P = 0.005). No such associations were found for the internal experts' assessment. IMPLICATIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study of the association between time consumption and quality of responses to drug-related queries in DICs. The quality of responses were in general good, but time consumption and quality were only weakly associated in this setting.