Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:35:11.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTEGRATING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES IN FORMULARY MANAGEMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2016

Monica Teng ,
Ai Leng Khoo ,
Ying Jiao Zhao ,
Liang Lin  and
Boon Peng Lim
Monica Teng
Affiliation:
Pharmacy & Therapeutics Office, Group Corporate Development, National Healthcare GroupMonica_Teng@nhg.com.sg
Ai Leng Khoo
Affiliation:
Pharmacy & Therapeutics Office, Group Corporate Development, National Healthcare Group
Ying Jiao Zhao
Affiliation:
Pharmacy & Therapeutics Office, Group Corporate Development, National Healthcare Group
Liang Lin
Affiliation:
Pharmacy & Therapeutics Office, Group Corporate Development, National Healthcare Group
Boon Peng Lim
Affiliation:
Pharmacy & Therapeutics Office, Group Corporate Development, National Healthcare Group
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Effective formulary management in healthcare institutions safeguards rational drug use and optimizes health outcomes. We implemented a formulary management program integrating the principles of health technology assessment (HTA) to improve the safe, appropriate, and cost-effective use of medicine in Singapore.

Methods: A 3-year formulary management program was initiated in 2011 in five public healthcare institutions. This program was managed by a project team comprising HTA researchers. The project team worked with institutional pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committees to: (i) develop tools for formulary drug review and decision making; (ii) enhance the HTA knowledge and skills of formulary pharmacists and members of P&T committees; (iii) devise a prioritization framework to overcome resource constraints and time pressure; and (iv) conceptualize and implement a framework to review existing formulary.

Results: Tools that facilitate drug request submission, drug review, and decision making were developed for formulary drug inclusion. A systematic framework to review existing formulary was also developed and tested in selected institutions. A competency development plan was rolled out over 2 years to enhance formulary pharmacists’ proficiency in systematic literature search and review, meta-analysis, and pharmacoeconomic evaluation. The plan comprised training workshops and on-the-job knowledge transfer between the project team and institutional formulary pharmacists through collaborating on selected drug reviews. A resource guide that consolidated the tools and templates was published to encourage the adoption of best practices in formulary management.

Conclusions: Based on the concepts of HTA, we implemented an evidence-based approach to optimize formulary management.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentDecision makingEvidence-basedFormularyPharmacy and therapeutics committee
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 1-2 , 2016 , pp. 81 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Tyler, LS, Cole, SW, May, JR, et al. ASHP guidelines on the pharmacy and therapeutics committee and the formulary system. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65:1272–1283.Google Scholar
2. ASHP statement on the formulary system. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1983;40:1384–1385.Google Scholar
3. Mittmann, N, Knowles, S. A survey of Pharmacy and Therapeutic committees across Canada: scope and responsibilities. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;16:e171–e177.Google Scholar
4. Puigventos, F, Santos-Ramos, B, Ortega, A, Duran-Garcia, E. Structure and procedures of the pharmacy and therapeutic committees in Spanish hospitals. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32:767–775.Google Scholar
5. World Health Organisation. WHO Global Health Expenditure Atlas. 2012. www.who.int/nha/atlas.pdf (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
6. Ministry of Health, Singapore. Our Healthcare System. 2014. www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/our_healthcare_system.html (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
7. Ministry of Health, Singapore. Costs and financing. 2014. http://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/costs_and_financing.html (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
8. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. United Kingdom: University of York; 2008. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
9. The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies, 3rd ed. Canada: 2006. http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
10. The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. The AMCP format for formulary submissions – A format for submission of clinical and economic evidence of pharmaceuticals in support of formulary consideration version 3.1. 2012. http://www.graceprinciples.org/doc/AMCP-formularySubmission-GL-dec2012.pdf (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
11. Khoo, AL, ed. Formulary management – A practical guide. 1st ed. Singapore: National Healthcare Group Pte Ltd. 2014.Google Scholar
12. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Therapeutic Review Framework. 2012. http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/TR_Framework.pdf (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
13. International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research. http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/practices_index.asp (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
14. Higgins, J, Green, S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
15. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). EUnetHTA Project (2006-2008) work Packages. http://www.eunethta.eu/activities/EUnetHTA%20Project%20%282006-08%29/eunethta-project-2006-2008 (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
16. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). HTA agencies and decision makers. http://www.inahta.org/upload/HTA_resources/HTA%20%20Decision%20Makers.pdf (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
17. Simpson, S, Hiller, J, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, et al. A toolkit for the identification and assessment of new and emerging health technologies. Euroscan, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom; 2009. http://euroscan.org.uk/mmlib/includes/sendfile.php?id=24 (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
18. Management Sciences for Health and World Health Organization. Drug and Therapeutics Committee Training Course. 2007. http://www.who.int/medicines/technical_briefing/tbs/Participant-s-Guide-All-Sessions.pdf (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
19. Russia Rational Pharmaceutical Management Project, Management Sciences for Health. Manual for the Development and Maintenance of Hospital Drug Formularies. 1996. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACE005.pdf (accessed June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
20. Tan, EL, Day, RO, Brien, JA. Prioritising drug and therapeutics committee (DTC) decisions: a national survey. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29:90–96.Google Scholar
21. Schiff, GD, Galanter, WL, Duhig, J, Koronkowski, MJ, Lodolce, AE, Pontikes, P, et al. A prescription for improving drug formulary decision making. PLoS Med. 2012;9:1–7.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Teng supplementary material

Table S1

Download Teng supplementary material(File)
File 17.8 KB