Audit of renal drug dosing: Comparison of 2 methods and evaluation of pharmacists' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour

Abstract

Background: The renal dosing directive of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Pharmacy Program outlines an auditable pharmacy service whereby pharmacists are required to perform documentation (i.e., document their rationale) only if they do not adjust the dose of any medications listed in the directive. Objective: To compare the suitability of manual orders (hard copy) and reports from the pharmacy information system (computer-generated) for determining pharmacists' compliance with the renal dosing directive; to measure compliance with the renal dosing directive; and to determine pharmacists' opinions about audit programs. Methods: A retrospective audit was used to compare 400 manual orders with the corresponding orders in reports from the pharmacy information system, to determine compliance with the renal dosing directive. An e-mail survey was performed to gather pharmacists' opinions about audit programs. Results: Of the 400 orders evaluated, 86 (22%) required consideration of a dose adjustment. Of these, 78 (91%) showed that dosing followed the guidelines for renal dysfunction in standard pharmacy references. Six (7%) of 86 manual orders and 8 (9%) of 86 pharmacy information system orders were not compliant with the renal dosing directive (i.e., no dosage adjustment and no documentation of rationale). Of 77 pharmacists approached, 34 (44%) completed the survey. Most respondents (31/34 [91%]) agreed that auditing is beneficial to patients, and the same number (31/34 [91%]) agreed that auditing provides important information to the pharmacy program. Only 17 (50%) were aware of medications listed in the renal dosing directive, and 14 (41%) felt that they had received sufficient education about pharmacy directives. Most respondents (29/34 [85%]) agreed that audits would reveal areas for improvement, and all (34/34 [100%]) would comply with any changes required to facilitate performance of an audit if such changes did not increase workload. Conclusions: Similar results were obtained with the 2 auditing methods used for this study (manual orders and reports from the pharmacy information system). However, pharmacists' current use of electronic documentation limits the feasibility of pharmacy information system audits. Survey respondents claimed that they were not familiar with the renal dosing directive, but they did agree that auditing clinical services is beneficial.