Am J Health-Syst Pharm
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Vol. 63, Issue 17, 1613-1618
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tordoff, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Reith, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tordoff, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Reith, D. M.

Report

Use of centrally developed pharmacoeconomic assessments for local formulary decisions

June M. Tordoff, John E. Murphy, Pauline T. Norris and David M. Reith

JUNE M. TORDOFF, M.PHARM., M.R.PHARM.S., M.P.S., is Lecturer, School of Pharmacy, University of Otago (UO), Dunedin, New Zealand. JOHN E. MURPHY, PHARM.D., is Professor and Associate Dean, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, Tucson. PAULINE T. NORRIS, B.A., M.A., PH.D., is Senior Lecturer, School of Pharmacy; and DAVID M. REITH, PH.D., FRACP, is Senior Lecturer, Dunedin School of Medicine, UO.

Address correspondence to Mrs. Tordoff at the School of Pharmacy, University of Otago, P.O. Box 913, Dunedin 9015, New Zealand (june.tordoff{at}stonebow.otago.ac.nz).


Purpose. The distribution, content, timeliness, use, and influence of pharmacoeconomic assessments (PEAs) of drugs in New Zealand public hospitals were examined.

Methods. In April 2005, a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional survey was sent to chief pharmacists at all 29 New Zealand hospitals employing a pharmacist. The questionnaire asked pharmacists about the use and influence of PEAs in their hospitals’ formulary decision-making process. Answers were given using a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being the most positive response.

Results. Of the 29 surveys mailed, 24 (83%) were completed. Data on 12 PEAs were analyzed. Assessments were seen and summaries read in most hospitals (median, 77% and 65%, respectively). Full documents were read in fewer hospitals (35%). In general, the PEAs were considered moderately easy to understand, provided a concise summary, and contained adequate detail of the methodology. Of the 24 respondent hospitals, 21 had assessment processes for new medicines; hence, a total of 252 hospital evaluations of Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC)-assessed drugs were possible. A total of 132 possible evaluations (52%) were undertaken. More evaluations (106 [42%]) took place before PHARMAC’s PEAs were distributed and fewer (26 [10%]) after distribution. Where used, the PEAs appeared to have a modest effect on hospital decisions.

Conclusion. The provision of 12 PEAS by PHARMAC to hospitals in New Zealand had only a modest influence on their formulary decision-making process, mostly due to the lack of timeliness of the PEAs. The timely delivery of centrally developed PEAs may be essential to generating a greater effect on the formulary decisions at a wider level.

Index terms: Data collection; Decision-making; Formularies; Methodology; Pharmacoeconomics; Pharmacy, institutional, hospital

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.