Rasmussen Lotte, Valentin Julie, Gesser Katarina Margareta, Hallas Jesper, Pottegård Anton
Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Department of Data Delivery & Medicinal Product Statistics, The Danish Health Data Authority, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2016 Oct;119(4):376-80. doi: 10.1111/bcpt.12610. Epub 2016 May 20.
The aim of this study was to measure the validity of the prescriber information recorded in the Danish National Prescription Registry (DNPR). The prescriber information recorded in the pharmacies' electronic dispensing system was considered to represent the prescriber information recorded in the DNPR. Further, the problem of validity of the prescriber information pertains only to non-electronic prescriptions, as these are manually entered into the dispensing system. The recorded prescriber information was thus validated against information from a total of 2000 non-electronic prescriptions at five Danish community pharmacies. The validity of the recorded prescriber information was measured at the level of the individual prescriber and the prescriber type, respectively. The proportion of non-electronic prescriptions with incorrect registrations was 22.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 20.6-24.3) when considering individual prescriber identifiers and 17.8% (95% CI: 16.1-19.5) when considering prescriber type. When excluding prescriptions specifically registered as 'missing prescriber identifier', the proportions decreased to 9.5% (95% CI: 8.2-11.0) and 4.1% (95% CI: 3.2-5.1), respectively. The positive predictive values for the classification of prescriber types were in the range of 94.0-99.2%, while the sensitivity ranged between 64.6% and 91.8%. With a maximum of 14% non-electronic prescriptions of all prescriptions in the DNPR in 2015, this corresponds to correct classification of prescriber types in the DNPR of at least 97.5%. In conclusion, the prescriber information in the DNPR was found to be valid, especially in recent years. Researchers should be aware of the low sensitivity towards prescriptions from private practicing specialists.
本研究的目的是衡量丹麦国家处方登记处(DNPR)记录的开处方者信息的有效性。药房电子配药系统中记录的开处方者信息被视为代表了DNPR中记录的开处方者信息。此外,开处方者信息的有效性问题仅适用于非电子处方,因为这些处方是手动输入配药系统的。因此,对照丹麦五家社区药房共2000份非电子处方的信息,对记录的开处方者信息进行了验证。分别在个体开处方者和开处方者类型层面衡量记录的开处方者信息的有效性。考虑个体开处方者标识符时,登记错误的非电子处方比例为22.4%(95%置信区间(CI):20.6 - 24.3),考虑开处方者类型时为17.8%(95%CI:16.1 - 19.5)。排除专门登记为“开处方者标识符缺失”的处方后,比例分别降至9.5%(95%CI:8.2 - 11.0)和4.1%(95%CI:3.2 - 5.1)。开处方者类型分类的阳性预测值在94.0 - 99.2%范围内,而敏感性在64.6%至91.8%之间。2015年DNPR中所有处方中最多14%为非电子处方,这意味着DNPR中开处方者类型的正确分类率至少为97.5%。总之,发现DNPR中的开处方者信息是有效的,尤其是近年来。研究人员应注意对私人执业专科医生处方的低敏感性。