Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Evaluation of rational drug use based on World Health Organization core drug use indicators in selected public hospitals of eastern Ethiopia: a cross sectional study

BMC Health Services ResearchBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:161

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2097-3

Received: 9 October 2016

Accepted: 15 February 2017

Published: 23 February 2017

Abstract

Background

Despite the complexity of drug use, a number of indicators have been developed, standardized and evaluated by the World Health Organization (WHO). These indicators are grouped in to three categories namely: prescribing indicators, patient care indicators and facility indicators. The study was aimed to evaluate rational drug use based on WHO-core drug use indicators in Dilchora referral hospital, Dire Dawa; Hiwot Fana specialized university hospital, Harar and Karamara general hospital, Jigjiga, eastern Ethiopia.

Methods

Hospital based quantitative cross sectional study design was employed to evaluate rational drug use based on WHO core drug use indicators in selected hospitals. Systematic random sampling for prescribing indicators and convenient sampling for patient care indicators was employed. Taking WHO recommendations in to account, a total of 1,500 prescription papers (500 from each hospitals) were investigated. In each hospital, 200 outpatient attendants and 30 key essential drugs were also selected using the WHO recommendation. Data were collected using retrospective and prospective structured observational check list. Data were entered to EPI Data Version 3.1, exported and analyzed using SPSS version 16.0. Besides, the data were evaluated as per the WHO guidelines. Statistical significance was determined by one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for some variables. P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Finally, tabular presentation was used to present the data.

Results

Mean, 2.34 (±1.08) drugs were prescribed in the selected hospitals. Prescriptions containing antibiotics and that of injectables were 57.87 and 10.9% respectively. The average consultation and dispensing time were 276.5 s and 61.12 s respectively. Besides, 75.77% of the prescribed drugs were actually dispensed. Only 3.3% of prescriptions were adequately labeled and 75.7% patients know about the dosage of the prescription. Not more than, 20(66.7%) key drugs were available in stock while only 19(63.3%) of key drugs had adequate labeling. On average, selected key drugs were out of stock for 30 days per year. All of the hospitals included in the study used the national drug list, formulary and standard treatment guidelines but none of them had their own drug list or guideline.

Conclusion

Majority of WHO stated core drug use indicators were not met by the three hospitals included in the study.

Keywords

Rational drug use World Health Organization Prescribing indicators Patient care indicators Health facility indicators

Background

Rational drug use (RDU) generally covers appropriate prescribing, appropriate dispensing and appropriate patient use of medicines for the diagnosis, prevention, mitigation and treatment of diseases. RDU can also be described as safe, cost-effective and economically viable use of drugs. To ehnance RDU, the patient should receive medicines appropriate to their heath care conditions, at optimum doses and sufficient time, as well as at the cost that the individual and the community can afford [1]. The ultimate goal of RDU is to foster better quality of pharmaceutical care, to minimize the cost of drug therapy, to avoid preventable adverse drug reactions and drug interactions, to maximize therapeutic outcomes and to promote patient adherence [2, 3].

WHO developed core and complementary drug use indicators for evaluation of drug use in healthcare settings. Among which, the core drug use indicators have been considered as the first line indicators validated by WHO for measurement of drug use. The core drug use indicators are more informative, more feasible, less likely to fluctuate over time and place as well as easier to measure drug use than the complementary indicators [4, 5]. Therefore, the core indicators have been selected for better quantitative evaluation of RDU. There are three major categories of core drug use indicators namely, prescribing indicators (average number of drugs per encounter; percentage of drugs prescribed with generic name; percentage of encounters with antibiotics prescribed, percentage of encounters with injections prescribed and percentage of drugs prescribed from EDL) patient care indicators (average consultation time, average dispensing time, percentage of drugs actually dispensed, percentage of drugs actually labeled and patient knowledge of how to take the drug), and health facility indicators (availability of essential drugs, availability of STGs, formularies and EDLs) [6, 7].

Pharmaceutical expenditure is up to 70/75% of total healthcare expenditure in low and middle-income countries [8]. However, irrational use of drugs has been primarily observed in healthcare systems of developing countries. WHO estimates that more than half of all drugs are irrationally prescribed or dispensed and more than half of the patients fail to adhere the prescribed regimens [5]. Common reasons for irrational use of medicines include:- lack of adequate information about the prescribed drugs, faulty and inadequate training of medical graduates, poor communication between health care providers and patients, lack of diagnostic facilities, demand from the patient (assuming that ‘every ill has a pill’), and defective drug supply system [9].

Irrational use of drugs can have a significant adverse effect on health care costs, quality of pharmaceutical care and emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Other negative impacts are the increased risk of adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions and non-adherence of patients to the treatment [912].

The information available suggests medicines are not optimally used. This inappropriate drug use has serious health and economic influences for the success of national health care system. The irrational use of medicines is a worldwide problem increasing morbidity, mortality and costs through increasing adverse drug reactions and hence patients are not achieving their desired outcomes [13, 14].

By and large, the causes of irrational drug use are highly vexed and complicated involving the healthcare system, the supply system, the health professionals, the patient and the community at large. Considering such problem, the overall drug use pattern should be evaluated to put a baseline data for further in-depth investigation of drug use to probe the underlying causes and interventional strategies to be implemented so as to try and reverse worrying trends in drug utilization in Ethiopia. Therefore, the study is, aimed to evaluate RDU by using WHO core drug use indicators in selected public hospitals of eastern Ethiopia.

Methods

Study design and setting

Facility based quantitative cross sectional study design was employed to evaluate rational drug use based on WHO core drug use indicators in the Dilchora referral hospital (DRH), Dire Dawa; Hiwot Fana specialized University hospital (HFSUH), Harar and Karamara general hospital (KGH), Jigjiga,. The study was targeted at three tertiary care public hospitals found in two regions and one city administration (Dire Dawa) of eastern Ethiopia. The study was conducted from Sep 1 to Nov 30, 2014. Retrospective cross sectional study design was used to evaluate prescribing indicators while prospective cross-sectional design was employed for patient care and facility indicators.

Study population

All outpatient prescriptions dispensed from Jan 1, 2014 to Jun 30, 2014 (prescribing indicators); patient attendants and their prescriptions in the outpatient departments (OPDs) of selected hospitals from Sep 1 to Nov 30, 2014 (patient care indicators) and drugs under essential drug lists (EDL) of 2013 of Ethiopia were included. However, prescriptions that contain only medical supplies like glove, syringe and patient attendants outside the normal working hours were excluded.

Sample size determination and sampling technique

For prescribing indicators

Considering WHO recommendation, 500 prescribing encounters were taken from each corresponding hospital [7]. So, a total of 1,500 prescription papers were investigated in the study. A systematic random sampling technique was employed to select 500 outpatient prescriptions from each hospital by taking every ten prescription in DRH, every eight in KGH and HFSUH.

Patient care indicators

Based on WHO criteria, at least 100 sample sizes of outpatient attendants (encounters) are recommended in individual health facility [7]. Therefore, to get a more reliable result (greater point estimate of the population) 200 samples of patients were assessed in each hospital. The patient attendants with their prescriptions in OPDs were sampled by convenient sampling technique prospectively.

For health facility indicators

Thirty key drugs were selected from each hospital as per WHO recommendation which is a minimum of 15 essential drugs in each health facility [7]. These key drugs being used for the management of top ten diseases of the respected hospitals were selected by communicating with prescribers and dispensers and reviewing national guideline.

Data collection instrument and techniques

Data were collected using structured observational check list for prescribing, patient care and health facility indicators. A reference of patient prescription papers was used to check the patient knowledge of how to take the correct dosage. Stop watch was used to determine the contact time of health care providers with patient (consultation and dispensing time).

Data regarding prescribing indicators were taken from sampled prescription records retrospectively and filled in structured check list accordingly by careful observation. On the other hand, data regarding patient care indicators was taken from patient attendants and their prescriptions in OPD during the period of data collection prospectively and was recorded in observational check list. Among patient care indicators, data regarding patient knowledge of how to take correct dosage was collected through face to face interview and recorded as 1 or 0 for each patient (all-none principle) as per the guideline. Besides, the availability of key/essential drugs, EDL and STG was assessed in OPD, and was filled in facility indicator form accordingly.

Data quality control

To ensure the data quality, the data collectors (pharmacy technicians) and supervisors (pharmacists) were trained by the principal investigators for three days. The English version of the checklist was translated to Amharic, Afaan Oromo and Somali languages and then back to English to maintain its consistency for data collection purpose. The data collection instruments were pre-tested in Jugal hospital, Harar by two co-investigators of the study. Completeness and consistency of the collected data was ensured by making frequent checks on the data collection process.

Data processing and analysis

Data was entered to EPI Data Version 3.1. Then, it was exported and analyzed using SPSS version 16.0. Besides, the data were evaluated as per the WHO guidelines. Statistical significance was determined by one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in some of the patient care indicators. P-value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Finally, tabular presentation was used to present the data.

Results

Prescribing indicators

For the assessment of WHO prescribing indicators, a total of 1500 prescription encounters (500 in each hospital) were included in the study making 100% completion and response rates. On average 2.34 (±1.08) drugs were prescribed in selected public hospitals of eastern Ethiopia and 39.3% of the prescription contains three or more drugs (Table 1). Besides, from the total of 1500 prescription encounters, 3174 (90.61%) of the drugs were prescribed by generic name with the lowest value observed in HFSUH (85.04%) (Table 2). Amongst the prescription encounters assessed, the study revealed that 868 (57.87%) prescriptions contained antibiotics. Moreover, 163 (10.9%) prescription contained at least one injectable medication (Table 3). Amongst antibiotics prescribed, 44.4% of them were amoxicillin or amoxicillin + clavulanic acid followed by ciprofloxacin (15.4%) (Table 4).
Table 1

Number of drugs per prescribing encounters (degree of polypharmacy) in eastern Ethiopia selected hospitals (DRH, HFSUH and KGH), Jan 1, 2014 - Jun 30, 2014 (n = 1500)

Number of drugs

DRH

HFSUH

KGH

Overall result

WHO standard

One

147(29.4)

108(21.6)

96(19.2)

351(23.4)

 

Two

197(39.4)

184(36.8)

178(35.6)

559(37.3)

 

Three

137(27.4)

116(23.2)

144(28.8)

397(26.5)

 

Four

17(3.4)

55(11.0)

70(14)

142(9.5)

 

Five

1(0.2)

25(5)

10(2)

36(2.4)

 

Six

____

10(2)

____

10(0.7)

 

Seven or more

1(0.2)

2(0.4)

2(0.4)

5(0.3)

 

Average value

2.06 (± 0.877)a

2.49 (±1.235)a

2.46 (± 1.056)a

2.34 (±1.08)b

≤ 2 (1.6–1.8)

aAverage value per hospital; boverall average number of drugs per encounter

Table 2

Percentage of drugs prescribed by generic name in DRH, HFSUH and KGH, eastern Ethiopia, Jan 1, 2014–Jun 30, 2014 (n = 1500 encounters)

Hospital name

# of drugs prescribed

# drugs prescribed by generic name

% drugs prescribed by generic name

WHO standard

DRH

1032

984

95.35a

 

HFSUH

1243

1057

85.04b

 

KGH

1228

1133

92.26a

 

Over all

3503

3174

90.61

100%

a Mild deviation b moderate deviation

Table 3

Percentages of encounters with antibiotics and injections prescribed in DRH, HFSUH and KGH, eastern Ethiopia, Jan 1, 2014–Jun 30, 2014 (n = 1500)

Prescribing indicators

DRH

HFSHU

KGH

Over all

WHO standard

Percentage of encounters with antibiotics

Total number of encounters

500

500

500

1500

 

Encounters with antibiotic

271

250

347

868

 

% of encounters with antibiotics

52.2

50

69.4

57.87a

< 30 (20–26.8%)

Percentage of encounters with injections

Encounters with injections

52

93

18

163

 

% of encounters with injections

10.4

18.6

3.6

10.9

(13.4–21.1%)

aSignificant deviation from WHO criteria

Table 4

Antibiotics prescribed in DRH, HFSUH and KGH, eastern Ethiopia, Jan 1, 2014–Jun 30, 2014 (n = 1500)

Antibiotics

Frequency (%)

Over all

DRH

HSUH

KGH

Amoxicillin/ amoxicillin + clavulinic acid

130(42.9)

120(46.0)

165(44.5)

415(44.4)

Ciprofloxacin

40(13.2)

36(13.8)

68(18.3)

144(15.4)

Doxycycline

23(7.6)

21(8.0)

30(8.1)

74(7.9)

Norfloxacin

23(7.6)

26(10.0)

8

57(6.1)

Cotrimoxazole

7

8

30(8.1)

45(4.8)

Cloxacillin

14(4.6)

12(4.6)

12(3.2)

38(4.1)

Erythromycin

8

2

20(5.4)

30(3.2)

Benzanthine Penicillin G

10(3.3)

12(4.6)

6

28(3.0)

Chloramphenicol

7

5

13(3.5)

25(2.7)

Cephalexin

12(4.0)

5

3

20(2.1)

Clarithromycin

4

1

9

14(1.5)

Gentamicin

5

4

3

12(1.3)

Ampicillin

4

3

4

11(1.2)

Tetracycline

3

5

-

8

Tetracort

8

-

-

8

Chloramphenicol eye ointment

5

-

-

5

Azithromycin

-

1

-

1

Total

303(100)

261(100)

371(100)

935(100)

Patient care indicators

The average consultation time and dispensing time in selected public hospitals of eastern Ethiopia were found to be 4.61 min and 61.12 s, respectively. Besides, on average, only 75.77% of prescribed drugs were actually dispensed in selected hospitals with lowest value seen in HFSUH (69.27%) (Table 5) and among dispensed prescriptions within the health facilities, only 3.3% of them were adequately labeled in target hospitals when taken together with zero value recorded in KGH (Table 6). Moreover, 75.7% patients know about the correct dosage schedule of the prescription in selected public hospitals of eastern Ethiopia (Table 7).
Table 5

Consultation time, dispensing time and percentage of drugs actually dispensed in DRH, HFSUH and KGH, eastern Ethiopia, Sep1-Nov 30, 2014 (n = 600)

Patient care indicators

DRH

HFSUH

KGH

Overall

WHO standards

P-value

Average consultation time (minute)

4.27 (±117.64)

6.36 (±266.22)

3.20(±83.88)

4.61(±191.58)

10 min

P < 0.001*

Average dispensing time (Sec)

88.62(±62.56)

37.58 (±30.35)

57.16(±40.78)

61.12(±51.01)

>180 s

P < 0.001*

Total number of drugs prescribed

405

410

485

1300

  

Total number of drugs dispensed

325

284

376

985

  

Percentage of drugs actually dispensed

80.25

69.27

77.53

75.77

100%

P < 0.001*

*One way analysis of variance (ANOVA), p value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant

Table 6

Labeling status of dispensed drugs in DRH, HFSUH and KGH, eastern Ethiopia, Sep1-Nov 30, 2014 (n = 600)

Hospital name

Contents of the label

Overall labeling status

Patient Name

Drug strength

Drug dosage

Frequency of administration

Duration of treatment

DRH

23(11.5%)

26(13.0%)

22(11.0%)

32(16.0%)

22(11.0%)

18(9.0%)a

HFSUH

4(2%)

11(5.5%)

13(6.5%)

15(7.5%)

5(2.5%)

2(1%) a

KGH

0

2(1%)

21(10.5%)

24(12.0%)

17(8.5%)

0a

Over all

27(4.5%)

39(6.5%)

56(9.3%)

71(11.8%)

44(7.3%)

20(3.3%)

a Major deviation from WHO set point

Table 7

Patient knowledge about dosage of dispensed drugs in DRH, HFSUH and KGH, eastern Ethiopia, Sep1-Nov 30, 2014 (n = 600)

Hospital name

Patient knowledge

Overall dosage schedule

Dose

Frequency

Duration

DRH

185(92.5%)

181(90.5%)

174(87.0%)

164(82.0%)a

HFSUH

179(89.5%)

186(93.0%)

144(72.0%)

134(67.0%)a

KGH

161(80.5%)

164(82.0%)

160(80.0%)

156(78.0%)a

Over all

525(87.5%)

531(88.5%)

478(79.7%)

454(75.7%)

a Below WHO recommendations (ideal standard)

Health facility indicators

Only 20(66.7%) key essential drugs were available in stock during the study and only 19(63.3%) of key drugs selected had adequate labeling. On average, selected key drugs were out of stock for 30 days per year (Table 8). All of the hospitals included in the study use the national EDL, formulary and STGs but none of them had their own EDLs, formularies or STGs (Table 9).
Table 8

Key essential drugs selected in DRH, HFSUH and KGH, eastern Ethiopia, Sep1-Nov 30, 2014 (n = 30)

Lists of key drugs

DR H

HFSUH

KGH

Amoxicillin capsule

Artemether + lumefantrine (Quartem)

 

Ceftriaxone injection

 

Cimetidine

  

Chloramphenicol

  

Ciprofloxacin tablet

Cloxacillin capsule

 

 

Diclofenac injection

 

Diclofenac tablet

 

Doxycycline

  

Enalapril

  

Erythromycin

  

Ferrous sulfate

  

Fluoxetine

  

Glibenclamide

  

Haloperidol

  

Metformin

  

Metoprolol

  

Metronidazole

 

Norfloxacin tablet

 

NPH insulin

  

Omeprazole

Oral rehydration salt (ORS)

 

 

Paracetamol

 

 

Regular insulin

  

RH(Rifampin + Isoniazid)

 

RHZE(Rifampine + Isoniazide + Pyrazineamide + Etambutol)

 

Sulphametoxazole + trimetoprime(cotrimoxazole)

 

Tetanus antitoxoid

 

 

Terra cortil®(oxytetracycline, hydrocortisone and polymyxin B sulfate)

  

Percentage of essential drugs

50a

50a

50a

WHO standard

100%

  

aDeviation from WHO essential drug criteria by half

Table 9

Availability, recording and stock out of key drugs in DRH, HFSUH and KGH, eastern Ethiopia, Sep 1–Nov 30, 2014

Health facility indicators

DRH

HFSUH

KGH

Over all

Percentage in stock of key drugs

12(80.0%)a

6(40.0%)a

11(73.3%)a

20(66.7%)

% of drugs with adequate recording

11(73.3%) a

0a

12(80.0%)a

19(63.3)

Average number of stock out days during the year for adequately recorded drugs

9.78

__

35a

30

Percentage of Expired drug

0

7(46.7%)a

6(40.0%)a

8(26.7%)a

a Violates WHO indicators set for every health care setting

Discussion

Prescribing indicators

In this study, the average number of drug per prescription was 2.34 (2.06–2.49) with the highest value seen in HFSUH (2.49). The average number of drugs per prescription in the present study was slightly higher than the ideal WHO standard which is less than two (1.6–1.8) [7]. Besides, 39.3% of prescriptions contained three or more drugs. However, lower average numbers of medicines per encounter (1.9, 1.7, 1.8, 1.8, 2.1 and 2.2) were reported in different areas of Ethiopia such as Hawassa University Teaching and Referral Hospital (HUTRH) [14], southern Ethiopia [15] Jimma University Specialized Hospital (JUSH) [16], Dessie Referral Hospital [17], four selected hospitals of west Ethiopia [18] and in eight health facilities of Somali zone of eastern Ethiopia [19], respectively. Similarly, other studies outside of Ethiopia also reported a low number of drugs per encounter, for example, 1.4 in Sudan [20] and 1.3 in Zimbabwe healthcare settings [21]. Most of these values will fall within the WHO standard [7]. The degree of poly pharmacy was the same with the result obtained from Bule Hora Hospital, Southern Ethiopia where the average value was found to be 2.33 [22]. On the contrary, compared to this study, higher average number of drugs per encounter was also reported in different areas of the world such as 2.7 and 3.7 in Indian health care settings [23, 24], 2.8 in Nigerian army hospital [25]. Even though there are no adequate data that identify the underlying causes of poly-pharmacy in the study area, it might be related to lack of adequate knowledge and training of health professionals, variation in the health care delivery system, empirical prescribing and symptomatic treatment approaches, differences in socioeconomic status as well as morbidity and mortality characteristics of the population [14]. Generally, over prescribing might, in part, be attributable to drug-drug interactions, high risk of adverse drug reactions, wastage of drugs (extravagancy), and increased out-of-pocket expenditures for patients, among others [7].

The percentage of drugs prescribed by the generic name was found to be 90.61% (85.04–92.26%) with the lowest value recorded in HFSUH (85.04%). This result was somewhat lower than the ideal WHO standard (100%) [7]. Similarly, the current finding was lower than the findings of Gondar University Hospital (GUH) [26] and HUTRH [14], and health centers in Somali zone of eastern Ethiopia [19]. However, it was higher than studies undertaken in JUSH [16] and southern Ethiopia [15]. In addition, lower values of generic prescribing practices were recorded in several health care settings such as selected hospitals of west Ethiopia (79.2%) [18], Nigerian army hospitals (49.3%) [25], secondary care referral hospital of south India (42.9%) [23]. The high level of generic prescription could probably be attributed to the fact that the study was conducted in governmental hospitals, where procurement of generic drugs is the prevailing practice. Brand prescribing is associated with unnecessary treatment costs, difficulty of remembering the medication, accessibility and bioequivalence problems [7]. Therefore, more effort is to be invested to effectively avoid the problems of brand prescribing and to promote safe, cost effective and accessible generic drugs.

Percentage of prescribing encounters with antibiotic was 57.87% (50–69.4%) which is almost twice of the WHO standard (20–26.8%) [7]. The highest percentage of antibiotic encounter was recorded in KGH (69.4%). This finding was also higher than the finding of similar studies conducted in India [27], Nigeria [25], and different parts of Ethiopia [1518] and almost similar with research done in HUTRH [14]. In the medicine use pattern study in 12 developing countries, the percentage of encounters with antibiotic prescribed were 63% in Sudan [20], 56% in Uganda [28], 48% in Nigeria [29] and 29% in Zimbabwe [21], among others.

Amoxicillin/amoxicillin + clavulanic acid was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic followed by ciprofloxacin. Similar study undertaken in different health care settings of Ethiopia found that amoxicillin to be the most frequently prescribed antibiotic in outpatient departments [14, 17, 19]. Inappropriate and over use of antibiotics, as observed in this study, might result in the emergence of antimicrobial resistance which is one of the major bottlenecks of chemotherapy for our globe [7]. If irrational use of antimicrobial agents is continued in this manner, the post antimicrobial era, where all the existing antimicrobial agents can be historical, will be expected in the near future. This is due to the imbalance between alarming rate of antimicrobial resistance and decelerating rate of new antimicrobial drug development [7].

On average, the percentage of encounters with injections prescribed was 10.7% in the present study with a high (18.6%) injection exposure recorded in HFSUH. In this study, the injection practices, in the outpatient settings, are generally acceptable. The current finding was better than studies conducted in India [24] Zimbabwe [21], southern Ethiopia [15], GUH [26] and HUTRH [14], west Ethiopia [18] and lied within WHO standard [7] but higher than the finding from JUSH [16]. The lower value in this study might be due to the fact that, as per the recommendation of WHO, only outpatient (ambulatory) patients’ prescription was taken with a great care so as not to overestimate the actual practice because of addition of inpatient prescription where prescribing injection is a common phenomena. Over use of injections may be associated with unnecessary injection related cost, risk of transmitting potential infections through needle stick injury and physiological and psychological pain during injection, difficulty of titrating overdose [7]. Therefore, safer, cost effective and simple oral alternatives should be promoted.

Patient care indicators

The average consultation time in this study was 4.61 min which was considered to be short (less than 10 min as per the WHO standard) [7]. The average consultation time in HFSUH (6.36 min) is better than the other hospitals involved in the study. The result was similar to the finding of a research conducted in Eritrea (4.7 min) [30] but lower than on time spent for consultation in Nigeria [29]. Generally, longer consultation time had improved patient satisfaction and more effective resource use [9]. On average, 61.12 s was the average dispensing time calculated from this study. Time spent for dispensing was very short when compared to the average dispensing time for ten countries (105 s) [9, 31, 32] and from a similar study done in Zimbabwe (150 s) [33] and Nigeria (210 s) [34], India [23] and different healthcare settings of Ethiopia [19, 35]. This difference might be ascribed to variation on patient load on the individual health care settings. Very short dispensing time will negatively affect appropriate labeling and information provision about medications. Better average dispensing time was recorded in DRH.

From the prescribed medications, only 75.77% was actually dispensed: 80.25% DRH, 77.53% KGH and 69.27% HFSUH. This finding was lower than the average of 12 countries (89%) [9, 31, 32]. The difference might be partly ascribed to differences in the national logistic management system. This figure indicated that patients were prone for unnecessary medication charge by private drug retail outlets where margin of benefit might reach more than 100%.

Only 20 (3.3%) of medications were adequately labeled (DRH, 9%, HFSUH, 1%, and KGH, 0%) and 75.7% of patients had adequate knowledge about the dosage of their treatment. Patient knowledge was higher than similar study done in Zimbabwe (70%) [33]. The patient knowledge might look better in this study despite the low level of labeling practice but the figure was very low when looked at the potential impact of missing the dosage regimen on the rest 25% patients’ health outcome. Since the assessment of knowledge was done immediately, the impact of labeling on patient knowledge might seem insignificant. But, their knowledge will fade when the time elapses.

Health facility indicators

None of the hospitals involved in the current study had its own EDL or STG. Since the prevalence of infectious and non-infectious diseases is affected by weather condition and lifestyle of the residents, hospital level EDL and STG are mandatory. Only 66.7% of key drugs were in stock while 63.3% of key drugs were adequately recorded. The finding is much lower than a result from Nigeria (83.3%) [36]. The absence of key drugs in stock was a strong indicator of weak pharmacy service in the hospitals and impair the overall services provided by the health sectors. Lack of adequate recording might have negatively affected the logistics management system and prone medications for theft. The problem is highly significant in HFSUH where none of the key drugs were recorded and 40% of the key drugs were available in stock. The average number of stock out days per year for adequately recorded drugs was 30 days. Percentage of expired drugs was 26.7% which is very significant for a poor country like Ethiopia where majority of the population have low access for essential drugs and majority of the drugs are imported with foreign currency at minimum tax.

Limitation of the study

Generally, this study tried to address almost all WHO approved core drug use indicators in selected hospitals. These indicators highlight major problem areas of drug use patterns and quantify the magnitude of the problem at glance. However, they do not answer why the problem exists. Besides, these indicators do not show whether the drug prescribed comply with diagnosis.

Conclusion

Most of WHO stated core drug use indicators were not met by the three hospitals included in the study. The average number of drugs prescribed per encounter was slightly above the WHO recommendation. Percentages of antibiotic and injection exposure were found to be very high. The average times spent for consultation and dispensing were very short in all the hospitals involved in the study. A few numbers of drugs were adequately labeled. None of the hospitals had developed its own EDL and STG. The recording system and stock management were very poor, especially in HFSUH. Significant amount of key drugs were out of stock. Having this study as a baseline data, in-depth investigation of drug use (qualitative study) should be designed to probe the underlying causes of the problem in these health institutions. Finally, a multitude of remedial intervention strategies (managerial, educational, regulatory and economical strategies) should be designed to reverse the existing problem and modernize the drug utilization patterns on these public health institutions and the Ethiopian health care system in general.

Abbreviations

DRH: 

Dilchora Referral Hospital

EDL: 

Essential drug List

GUH: 

Gondar University Hospital

HFSUH: 

Hiwot Fana Specialized University Hospital

HUTRH: 

Hawassa University Teaching and referral Hospital

JUSH: 

Jimma University Specialized Hospital

KGH: 

Karamara General Hospital

RDU: 

Rational drug use

STG: 

Standard Treatment Guidelines

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we would like to thank Haramaya University for providing such opportunity for conducting this research. We also extend our gratitude and appreciation for DRH, HFSUH and KGH as well as their respective regional health offices for their kindly support. We would like to express appreciation to all patients and health professionals who participated in the study for their devotion of time and extremely generous cooperation. Last but not least, special gratitude is due for data collectors who contributed a lot in gathering all the data required for the study.

Funding

We acknowledge Haramaya University for funding of this research work.

Availability of data and materials

Permission to share raw data used in this study was not obtained.

Authors’ contributions

MS, GM, FA and TG conceived the original idea and helped to draft the proposal; all authors coordinated the data collection of the study; BM performed data entry, analysis and write-up. MS also prepared the final manuscript for publication. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approval and permission was sought from Institutional Health Research Ethics Review Committee (IHRERC), College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University and the approval letter was then successfully received from the committee. Permission letters were also received from the regional health offices and selected hospital administrators (DRH, HFSUH and KGH) to conduct this study. Moreover, participant information sheet and informed consent form was filled to collect data regarding patient care indicators from the individual patient.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University
(2)
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University
(3)
Department of Pharmaceutics and Social Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University

References

  1. Management sciences for health (MSH), managing drug supply. 1997, 2nd edition, (revised and expanded), kumarian press, west hart Ford, Conn, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Laing RO, Hogerzeil HV. Ten recommendations to improve use of medicines in developing countries. Health Policy Plan. 2001;16(1):13–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Drug administration and control authority (DACA). Training modules on operation and management of special pharmacies, Birnanenaselam printing enterprise, Ethiopia, 2003. Available at: www.medpages.co.za/sf/index.php?page=organisation&orgcode=282339. Accessed 10 Jun 2016.
  4. Ofori-Asenso R, Brhlikova P, Pollock AM. Prescribing indicators at primary health care centers within the WHO African region: a systematic analysis (1995–2015). BMC Public Health. 2016;16:724.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Ofori-Asenso R, Adom Agyeman A. Irrational use of medicines—a summary of Key concepts. Pharmacy. 2016;4(4):35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. WHO. Promoting rational use of medicines; core components, Policy perspectives on medicines. 2002. Available at: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Jh3011e/.
  7. WHO. How to investigate drug use in health facilities: selected drug indicators, action program on essential drugs (DAP), Geneva, 1993. Available at: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js2289e/.
  8. Cameron A, Ewen M, Ross-Degnan D, Ball D, Laing R. Medicine prices, availability, and affordability in 36 developing and middle-income countries: a secondary analysis. Lancet. 2009;373(9659):240–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. WHO. The world medicines situations: chapter 8-rational use of medicines. 2010. Available online at: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js6160e/10.html. Accessed 9 May 2014.
  10. Md Rezal RS, Hassali MA, Alrasheedy AA, Saleem F, et al. Physicians’ knowledge, perceptions and behaviour towards antibiotic prescribing: a systematic review of the literature. Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther. 2015;13(5):665–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. White TJ, Arakelian A, Rho JP. Counting the costs of drug related adverse events. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15(5):445–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ayinalem GA, Gelaw BK, Belay AZ, et al. Drug use evaluation of ceftriaxone in medical ward of Dessie Referral Hospital, North East Ethiopia. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2013;2:711.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Godman B, Finlayson AE, Cheema PK, et al. Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications. BMC Med. 2013;11:179.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Desalegn AA. Assessment of drug use pattern using WHO prescribing indicators at Hawassa University teaching and referral hospital, south Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:2–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Dilbato DD, Kuma ZG, T/Mariam S. A base line survey on prescribing indicators and the underlying factors influencing prescribing in southern Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Dev. 1998;12(2):87–93.Google Scholar
  16. Ayen WY. Base line survey on drug prescribing indicators for outpatient in Jimma University specialized hospital in South west Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sc. 2005;15(2):147–56.Google Scholar
  17. Assen A, Abrha S. Assessment of drug prescribing pattern in dessie referral hospital, dessie. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2014;5(11):777–81.Google Scholar
  18. Lenjisa JL, Ferejaa TH. Retrospective analysis of prescribing practice based on WHO Prescribing Indicators at Four Selected Hospitals of West Ethiopia: Policy Implication. East Cent Afr J Pharm Sci. 2013;16:69–74.Google Scholar
  19. Bilal AI, Osman ED, Mulugeta A. Assessment of medicines use pattern using World Health Organization’s prescribing, patient care and health facility indicators in selected health facilities in eastern Ethiopia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:144.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Bannenberg WJ, Forshaw CJ, Fresle D, Salami AO, Wahab HA. Evaluation of the Nile province essential drug project. WHO: Geneva; 1991. WHO/DAP/91.10. In: How to investigate drug use in health facilities. Geneva: WHO; 1993. 74 (WHO/DAP/93.1).Google Scholar
  21. Ministry of Health/Zimbabwe Essential Drugs Action Programme. Essential Drugs Survey. In: How to investigate drug use in health facilities. Geneva: WHO; 1993. 74(WHO/DAP/93.1).Google Scholar
  22. Haile Mariam A, Raghavendra Y, Bobasa EM. Evaluating rational drug use with the help of World Health Organization’s core indicators in Bule Hora Hospital, Southern Ethiopia. Gaziantep Med J. 2015;21(2):108–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Prasad PS, Rudra JT, Vasanthi P, Sushitha U. Assessment of drug use pattern using World Health Organization core drug use indicators at Secondary Care Referral Hospital of South India. CHRISMED J Health Res. 2015;2(3):223–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Reddy PV, Ravichandran V, Shanmugasundaram P. Evaluation of drug use pattern in gynecology department using WHO prescribing indicators. Int J Pharm Bio Sci. 2015;6(4):83–8.Google Scholar
  25. Adebayo ET, Hussain NA. Pattern of prescription drug use in Nigerian army hospitals. Ann Afr Med. 2010;9(3):152–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Admassie E, Begashaw B, Hailu W. Assessment of drug use practices and completeness of prescriptions in Gondar University Teaching Referral Hospital. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2013;4:265–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Sunil K, Sankahe P, Kukarni M. Pattern of prescription and drug dispensing in municipal medical college and general hospital, India. Indian J Pediatr. 2005;72(2):117–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Christensen RF. A strategy for the improvement of prescribing and drug use in rural health facilities in Uganda. Ugandan Essential drugs and management program; 2 September - 11 October 1990. In: How to investigate drug use in health facilities. Geneva: WHO; 1993. 74 (WHO/DAP/93.1).Google Scholar
  29. Bimo. Report on Nigerian field test. INRUD News 1992; 3(1): 9– 10. In: How to investigate drug use in health facilities. Geneva: WHO; 1993. 74(WHO/DAP/93.1). http://apps.who.int/medicine docs/en/d/Js2289e/8.3.html.. Accessed on 24 Feb 2014.Google Scholar
  30. Embaye A. Drug use studies in Eritrean healthcare facilities. 1999. Available online at (http://ddc2:bumc.bu.edu./richardl/EmbayeConcentrationPaper.htm.).Google Scholar
  31. Chima I, Obidiya O, Abraham C. Evaluation of drug use and patient care practices in a referral health facility in yenagoa, bayelsa state, Nigeria. Continental J Pharm Sci. 2012;6:10–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Arustiyono. Promoting rational drug use at the community health centers in Indonesia, available at: http://archives.who.int/prduc2004/Resource_Mats/Asia_papers/PROMOTING%20RATIONAL%20USE%20OF%20DRUGS%20IN%20INDONESIA.htm. Accessed 15 Mar 2015.
  33. MoHCW-Public sector survey: Harare, directorate of pharmacy services, Ministry of health and child welfare, Zimbabwe. 2000. Available at:-https://www.unicef.org/zimbabwe/ZMPMS_report.pdf : Accessed on 30 May, 2016
  34. Tamuno I. Prescription pattern of clinicians in private health facilities in Kano, Northwestern Nigeria. Asian Pac J Trop Dis. 2011;1(3):235–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Angamo MT, Wabe NT, Raju NJ. Assessment of patterns of drug use by using World Health Organization’s prescribing, patient care and health facility indicators in selected health facilities in southwest Ethiopia. J Appl Pharm Sci. 2011;1(7):62–6.Google Scholar
  36. Odusanya OO. Drug use indicators at a secondary health care facility in Lagos, Nigeria. J Community Med Prim Health Care. 2004;16(1):21–4.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017