Drug Utilization Review (DUR)

Article Author:
Niki Carver
Article Editor:
Allison Dering Anderson
Updated:
1/19/2019 8:59:53 PM
PubMed Link:
Drug Utilization Review (DUR)

Introduction

Although distinctions historically have been made among the terms drug-use evaluation, drug-use review, and medication use evaluation (MUE), they all refer to the systematic evaluation of medication use employing standard, observational quality-improvement methods. MUE is a quality-improvement activity, but it also can be considered a formulary system management technique. An MUE is a performance improvement method that focuses on evaluating and improving medication-use processes with the goal of optimal patient outcomes.  

MUE encompasses the goals and objectives of drug use evaluation (DUE) in its broadest application, with an emphasis on improving patient outcomes. Use of MUE, rather than DUE, emphasizes the need for a more multifaceted approach to improving medication use. MUE has a common goal with the pharmaceutical care it supports: to improve an individual patient’s quality of life through achievement of predefined, medication-related therapeutic outcomes. Through its focus on the system of medication use, the MUE process helps to identify actual and potential medication-related problems, resolve actual medication-related problems, and prevent potential medication-related problems that could interfere with achieving optimum outcomes from medication therapy.

Function

In the institutional setting, MUE methods have traditionally involved establishing evidence-based criteria for medication use and applying those criteria retrospectively to determine the degree to which a particular medication was used in discordance with established criteria. Interventions then could be used to improve prescribing based on those data. As electronic medical records have become increasingly important and more widely available, MUE activities have matured from simple paper-based medical record reviews to sophisticated analyses drawing on multiple sources of data regarding medication use. A more expansive approach to MUE has been described in which not only the use of individual medications but the entire process of care for disease states is examined. The use of quasiexperimental research methods may provide more meaningful information for quality improvement purposes (e.g., economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes of greater relevance than arbitrarily set appropriateness criteria).  

MUE can be simply informative, such as collecting data to guide decision making, or be used to measure the effect of interventions, such as the addition of a new agent to the formulary or the implementation of a new medication use policy. MUE activities can focus on any dimension of the medication-use process (from medication acquisition to patient monitoring) that presents an opportunity for improvement. While MUE often focuses on problem-prone, high risk, or high-cost medications, MUE can be used to examine any aspect of medication use that is problematic to the institution conducting the evaluation.  

A systematic plan to monitor, evaluate, and improve medication use should be established within the organization. Such a plan is an accreditation requirement for many organizations such as the Joint Commission. MUE should be a part of the organization’s overall quality-improvement program. MUE activities should be conducted to examine the effect of medication use policy decisions, particularly those made in the absence of convincing evidence from the biomedical literature, but they also can be conducted to inform decision-making, again, particularly when making policy decisions under conditions of uncertainty. Specific projects to evaluate medication use can either involve assessing how an individual medication is used or evaluate medication management of a given disease state. All steps of the medication-use process should be evaluated over time. The P and T committee, or its equivalent, should be involved in the MUE process.  

In the community pharmacy setting, DUR is mandated by Federal Law (OBRA-90) for those patients receiving drugs through Medicaid.  A review for preventable problems (pro-DUR) is a mandated component of this process. There are Federal mandates for resources to be used in creating the criteria used. The State agency administering Medicaid is also mandated to perform the quality review discussed above and called retro-DUR in this setting. DUR programs play a key role in helping managed health care systems understand, interpret, and improve the prescribing, administration, and use of medications. Employers and health plans find DUR programs valuable because the results are used to foster more efficient use of scarce health care resources. Pharmacists play a key role in this process because of their expertise in the area of pharmaceutical care. DURs afford the managed care pharmacist the opportunity to identify trends in prescribing within groups of patients such as those with asthma, diabetes, or high blood pressure. Pharmacists can then, in collaboration with other members of the health care team, initiate action to improve drug therapy for both individual patients and covered populations. DURs serve as a means of improving the quality of patient care, enhancing therapeutic outcomes, and reducing inappropriate pharmaceutical expenditures, thus reducing overall health care costs.

MUEs and DURs are classified into three categories: prospective, concurrent, and retrospective. In a prospective review, the evaluation of a patient's therapy is planned takes place before the medication is dispensed. In a concurrent review, the review is ongoing and the drug therapy is monitored during the course of treatment. In a retrospective MUE, the evaluation and review of the therapy occurs after the patient has received the medication.  Specific elements addressed in each medication use evaluation are to

  • define the purpose, focus, and priorities, 
  • develop the usage criteria to be evaluated, 
  • collect the usage data; review and evaluate the data collected,
  • develop and implement actions to improve medication usage,
  • assess the actions that were implemented, 
  • document the results, and
  • report the results to other healthcare professionals.

The success of each medication usage evaluations should be reviewed within a specific timeframe, whether it be three months, six months or a year.

Clinical Significance

Concurrent evaluation (collecting data during care delivery and sometimes as a component of the care process) is usually preferred over retrospective methods because it allows organizations to select relevant outcomes for collection rather than rely on outcomes routinely documented in patient medical records. For example, quality-of-life measures remain an infrequently documented measure in medical records. Only through concurrent evaluation can that outcome measure be reliably captured. Medications recently added to the formulary should be evaluated, especially if there is the potential for inappropriate use or adverse effects of concern. This review should occur 6 to 12 months after their addition to the formulary. High-cost, high-use, and problem prone medications also are good candidates for evaluation.


References

[1] ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: monitoring and patient education--2012., Pedersen CA,Schneider PJ,Scheckelhoff DJ,, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 2013 May 1     [PubMed PMID: 23592362]
[2] Check it out: A practical tool for improving medication safety., Warholak TL,Rupp MT,Zale A,Hines M,Park S,, Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA, 2015 Nov-Dec     [PubMed PMID: 26547596]
[3] ASHP guidelines on medication cost management strategies for hospitals and health systems.,, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 2008 Jul 15     [PubMed PMID: 18593684]
[4] ASHP guidelines on medication-use evaluation. American Society of Health-system Pharmacists., Phillips MS,Gayman JE,Todd MW,, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 1996 Aug 15     [PubMed PMID: 8862210]
[5] Prada SI,Loaiza JS, Comparing the Medicaid Prospective Drug Utilization Review Program Cost-Savings Methods Used by State Agencies in 2015 and 2016. American health     [PubMed PMID: 30972148]
[6] Kim SJ,Han KT,Kang HG,Park EC, Toward safer prescribing: evaluation of a prospective drug utilization review system on inappropriate prescriptions, prescribing patterns, and adverse drug events and related health expenditure in South Korea. Public health. 2018 Oct;     [PubMed PMID: 30145461]
[7] Prada SI, Comparing the Medicaid Retrospective Drug Utilization Review Program Cost-Savings Methods Used by State Agencies. American health     [PubMed PMID: 29403573]
[8] Lee SM,Lee SO,Kim DS, Physicians' and pharmacists' perceptions on real-time drug utilization review system: a nationwide survey. International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care. 2017 Oct 1;     [PubMed PMID: 28992160]