{
  "abstract": "Background and Importance The electronic medical record includes a template, the Pharmacist Intervention Form, used to document pharmaceutical interventions during the prescription verification. However, inappropriate and incomplete filling of this form reduces data quality and limits evaluation of its clinical impact.Aim and Objectives To evaluate the use and relevance of the Pharmacist Intervention Form. The goal is to identify areas for improvement. These improvements are intended to enhance data consistency and support the use of collected information as clinical activity indicators.Material and Methods A descriptive analysis was conducted on all Pharmacist Intervention Forms documented over a 15-day period (May 11–25, 2025). Collected data included structured fields (drug involved, drug-related problem, type of action and intervention acceptance) and free-text entries (intervention description). Intervention acceptance was determined by reviewing subsequent prescriptions in the patient’s medical record.Results A total of 201 forms were analysed. Only 12 of the 24 predefined drug-related problems were used. The most frequent were drug duplication (46.3%), inappropriate dosing (16.4%), and the ‘Other’ category (21.4%). The type of action taken following the drug-related problem is documented in only 1.5% of cases (2 out of 17 possible types), highlighting a major documentation gap. Acceptance rates varied by problem category, from 51.1% for ‘Other’ to 100% for contraindications. Additional issues included overuse of the ‘Other’ category, frequent misclassification (28 forms), and inconsistent documentation practices.Conclusion and Relevance These findings highlight the need for two key improvements: (1) revision of the Pharmacist Intervention Form, including optimisation of the categories based on a parallel review of the literature, to retain only relevant and commonly used fields; and (2) promotion of consistent and complete documentation by users. These changes are essential to improve data consistency and maximise the form’s utility as a clinical activity indicator. Improvement strategies will be reassessed in future evaluations.Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Pharmacy, Brussels, Belgium"
      ],
      "name": "M Demuysère"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Pharmacy, Brussels, Belgium"
      ],
      "name": "A De Keyser"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Pharmacy, Brussels, Belgium"
      ],
      "name": "O Dalleur"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Pharmacy, Brussels, Belgium"
      ],
      "name": "S Desmedt"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Pharmacy, Brussels, Belgium"
      ],
      "name": "S Quennery"
    }
  ],
  "title": "4CPS-232 Evaluation of the pharmacist intervention form: a descriptive analysis and future perspectives",
  "uid": "3a8eb51b-c9c4-5d72-9af6-83e49c46a86c"
}