Alignment of CanMEDS-based Undergraduate and Postgraduate Pharmacy Curricula in The Netherlands.

In this article the design of three master programs (MSc in Pharmacy) and two postgraduate specialization programs for community or hospital pharmacist is described. After a preceding BSc in Pharmacy, these programs cover the full pharmacy education capacity for pharmacists in primary and secondary health care in the Netherlands. All programs use the CanMEDS framework, adapted to pharmacy education and specialization, which facilitates the horizontal integration of pharmacists' professional development with other health care professions in the country. Moreover, it is illustrated that crossing the boundary from formal (university) education to experiential (workplace) education is eased by a gradual change in time spent in these two educational environments and by the use of comparable monitoring, feedback, and authentic assessment instruments. A reflection on the curricula, based on the principles of the Integrative Pedagogy Model and the Self-determination Theory, suggests that the alignment of these educational programs facilitates the development of professional expertise and professional identity of Dutch pharmacists.

Development of a Postgraduate Community Pharmacist Specialization Program Using CanMEDS Competencies, and Entrustable Professional Activities.

Objectives. To develop and implement a postgraduate, workplace-based curriculum for community pharmacy specialists in the Netherlands, conduct a thorough evaluation of the program, and revise any deficiencies found. Methods. The experiences of the Dutch Advisory Board for Postgraduate Curriculum Development for Medical Specialists were used as a guideline for the development of a competency-based postgraduate education program for community pharmacists. To ensure that community pharmacists achieved competence in 10 task areas and seven roles defined by the Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists (CanMEDS), a two-year workplace-based curriculum was built. A development path along four milestones was constructed using 40 entrustable professional activities (EPAs). The assessment program consisted of 155 workplace-based assessments, with the supervisor serving as the main assessor. Also, 360-degree feedback and 22 days of classroom courses were included in the curriculum. In 2014, the curriculum was evaluated by two focus groups and a review committee. Results. Eighty-two first-year trainees enrolled in the community pharmacy specialist program in 2012. That number increased to 130 trainees by 2016 (a 59% increase). In 2015, based on feedback from pharmacy supervisors, trainees, and other stakeholders, 22.5% of the EPAs were changed and the number of workplace-based assessments was reduced by 48.5%. Conclusion. Using design approaches from the medical field in the development of postgraduate workplace-based pharmacy education programs proved to be feasible and successful. How to address the concerns and challenges encountered in developing and maintaining competency-based postgraduate pharmacy education programs merits further research.

NSAID-antihypertensive drug interactions: which outpatients are at risk for a rise in systolic blood pressure?

BACKGROUND: Management guidelines for drug-drug interactions between non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antihypertensives recommend blood pressure monitoring in hypertensive patients. We measured the short-term effect of initiating NSAIDs on systolic blood pressure (SBP) in users of antihypertensives, aiming to investigate which outpatients are at risk for an increase in SBP in daily clinical practice. DESIGN: A cohort study with a nested case-control design in Dutch community pharmacies. METHODS: Patients with a drug-drug interaction alert for a newly initiated NSAID and antihypertensive were interviewed and their SBP was measured at T0, after one week (T1) and after two weeks (T2). We evaluated risk factors for exceeding a predefined limit of change (PLoC) in SBP (≥ 10 mmHg to ≥ 140 mmHg) at T1 and T2 versus T0. RESULTS: For 112 patients the SBP at T0 was measured. Two patients were excluded (T0 SBP ≥ 180 mmHg). PLoC was exceeded in 10 patients (10.4%) at T1 and in seven patients (8.0%) at T2. Patients using etoricoxib (odds ratio (OR), 21.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.7-120.6) and patients using >1 defined daily dose of an NSAID (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.1-10.0) were at increased risk of a rise in SBP. CONCLUSIONS: A newly initiated NSAID has an immediate clinically relevant effect on SBP in some users of antihypertensives. Management guidelines for NSAID-antihypertensive drug-drug interactions should advise SBP monitoring before and after initiation of an NSAID or intensification of NSAID therapy. Monitoring is especially relevant in patients prescribed high dosages of NSAIDs. Etoricoxib should not be used in hypertensive patients.

Missed drug therapy alerts as a consequence of incomplete electronic patient records in Dutch community pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Complete and up-to-date medical and pharmaceutical information in the electronic patient record (EPR) is a prerequisite for risk management in community pharmacy. OBJECTIVES: To analyze which information is missing in the EPR and which drug therapy alerts, therefore, fail to appear. METHODS: Pharmacy students selected patients who were dispensed a prescription drug and enlisted for >3 months in the participating pharmacies. Patients received a questionnaire in which they were asked to verify their medication history, and to provide additional patient information. For each enrolled patient, the students collected all relevant information from the EPR. Self-reported data from the patient were compared with data retrieved from the EPR. Missed information in the EPR was evaluated based on national professional guidelines. RESULTS: Questionnaires were received from 67% of the selected patients (442/660). Prescription drugs were missing in the EPR of 14% of the 442 patients, nonprescription drugs in 44%, diseases in 83%, and intolerabilities in 16%. In 38% of the patients (166/442), drug therapy alerts failed to appear because of missing information: drug-disease interactions in 34% of the patients, duplicate medications in 4%, drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in 4%, and drug intolerabilities in 2%. Among the (non-)prescription drugs missing, NSAIDs were most frequently responsible for the missed alerts. Diseases most frequently associated with missed alerts were gastroesophageal reflux disease, renal insufficiency, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Relevant patient information was frequently missing in the EPRs. The nonappearance of drug therapy alerts may have had clinical consequences for patients.

Clarity and applicability of drug-drug interaction management guidelines: a systematic appraisal by general practitioners and community pharmacists in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability and daily use of computerized drug-drug interaction surveillance systems, exposure to potentially relevant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) continues. DDI management guidelines are often inadequate and clear management options are lacking, which attributes to overriding of DDI signals. Although general criteria for the development and reporting of high-quality clinical practice guidelines have been identified, it appears these have not yet been applied to DDI management guidelines. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the clarity and applicability of guidelines for the management of potentially harmful DDIs. METHODS: We selected 13 DDIs that are potentially harmful for patients and frequently occur in community pharmacy practice in the Netherlands. The clarity and applicability of the management guidelines of these DDIs were appraised using the appropriate two domains - 'Clarity and presentation' and 'Applicability', of the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. The appraisal was performed by 12 community pharmacists and 12 general practitioners. The standardized domain scores and mean item scores for 'Clarity and presentation' and 'Applicability' were compared. RESULTS: All DDI management guidelines were generally found to score well on 'Clarity and presentation', but poorly with respect to 'Applicability' (standardized domain scores 68.0 vs 26.1%). Within the domain 'Clarity and presentation', the item 'tools for application' received the lowest scores. Within the domain 'Applicability', cost implications, organizational barriers and key review criteria were all poorly documented. All guidelines presented non-directive advice using words such as 'consider' and 'regularly'. CONCLUSIONS: Developers of DDI management guidelines should take the appropriate domains of the AGREE Instrument into consideration in their development processes. The applicability of DDI management guidelines should be pretested before publishing. To improve guideline quality, more attention should particularly be paid to the available tools for applications and cost implications.

Documentation quality in community pharmacy: completeness of electronic patient records after patients' first visits.

BACKGROUND: When patients visit a community pharmacy for the first time, the creation of an electronic patient record (EPR) with relevant and up-to-date data is a prerequisite for adequate medication surveillance and patient counseling. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the level of completeness of documentation in the EPR after a patient's first visit to a Dutch community pharmacy. METHODS: In each participating pharmacy, newly enlisted (<3 mo) patients to whom at least one medication had been dispensed were enrolled in this survey. For each patient who could be interviewed, pharmacy master students used a structured questionnaire to gather relevant, mandatory patient data (ie, basic characteristics, current drugs used, diseases, intolerabilities, specific conditions) and nonmandatory patient data (eg, diagnostic and monitoring data, personal experiences and habits, drug use problems) from the patient's EPR and from a structured telephone interview with the patient. Data retrieved from the patient's EPR were compared with data provided by the patient during the telephone interview. RESULTS: Of 403 selected patients, 154 (38.2%) could be interviewed by telephone. Poor documentation of telephone numbers in the EPR was the main reason for nonresponse (134/249). Interviewers found that 67.7% of prescription drugs, 0% of over-the-counter drugs, 19.6% of diseases, 3.7% of intolerabilities, and none of the specific conditions reported by patients had been documented in the EPR. Nonmandatory data (personal experiences and habits, drug use problems) reported during the patient interview had not been documented in the EPR. CONCLUSIONS: The EPR after a patient's first visit to the community pharmacy is often incomplete. For new patients, the pharmacist should more proactively and systematically gather patient information, and all relevant information should be recorded, preferably in coded form, in the pharmacy information system to allow more adequate clinical risk management.

Compliance with national guidelines for the management of drug-drug interactions in Dutch community pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists contribute to the detection and prevention of drug therapy-related problems, including drug-drug interactions. Little is known about compliance with pharmacy practice guidelines for the management of drug-drug interaction alerts. OBJECTIVE: To measure the compliance of community pharmacists with Dutch guidelines for the management of drug-drug interactions and to determine patient- and prescriber-related determinants for noncompliance. METHODS: Sixteen clinically relevant drug-drug interactions were included in the study based on certain described criteria. From June to August 2005, Dutch pharmacists (N = 149) collected alerts occurring in daily patient care for these interactions as well as information related to the patient, the alert itself, the prescriber, and the management of the alert. Noncompliance was measured by comparing the management executed by the pharmacy with the national guidelines. RESULTS: Overall compliance with the guidelines was 69.3% (n = 423), with large differences between the various drug-drug interactions. Male sex (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.52 to 3.31), oldest age (>75 y; OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.75), and polypharmacy (>7 medications; OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.46 to 3.80) were associated with a higher probability for noncompliance with the guidelines. Prescriber-related variables had no significant influence on guideline compliance. Substitution of one of the involved agents, recommended for most of the drug-drug interactions, was executed in a small minority of cases. The outcome of interaction management, such as substitution, dose reduction, or temporary stop of one of the agents, was frequently inconsistent with the guidelines. Compliance rates were partly influenced by the ultimate decision made by the prescriber. In that way, pharmacies' compliance was not solely assessed. However, in only 22.5% of the cases was the drug-drug interaction presented to the prescriber. CONCLUSIONS: Noncompliance with Dutch guidelines for the management of drug-drug interaction alerts is common in community pharmacies. Further research into underlying reasons for noncompliance is warranted, such as the relation between pharmacist and prescriber in this context.

Clinical risk management in Dutch community pharmacies: the case of drug-drug interactions.

BACKGROUND: The prevention of drug-drug interactions requires a systematic approach for which the concept of clinical risk management can be used. The objective of our study was to measure the frequency, nature and management of drug-drug interaction alerts as these occur in daily practice of Dutch community pharmacies. METHODS: In total, 63 Dutch pharmacies collected all drug-drug interaction alerts during 153 research days (on average 2.4 days/pharmacy), as well as variables related to these alerts, such as involved medicines, first time or recurrent drug-drug interaction, same or different prescribers, patient data (age, sex) and information about the management of drug-drug interactions by the pharmacy. The latter was discriminated into internal procedures only and external action, such as communication with the patient, the prescriber or the anticoagulation clinic and prescription modification. All drug-drug interactions were classified into categories of clinical relevance (A-F) and available evidence (0-4). RESULTS: A total of 43,129 prescription-only medicines were dispensed during the study period. On average, 16.8 interaction alerts per day per pharmacy were collected. Approximately 6% of all prescriptions generated a drug-drug interaction alert. Of all alerts (n = 2572), 31.1% occurred for the first time and with 21% two different prescribers were involved. The 20 most frequently occurring drug-drug interaction alerts accounted for approximately 76% of all alerts. Cardiovascular drugs, NSAIDs, oral contraceptives and antibacterials were most frequently involved. External action was taken in response to 27.3% of the alerts, meaning either a modification of one of the concerned prescriptions (n = 65; 9.3%), communication with the prescriber or anticoagulation clinic (n = 90; 12.8%) or communication with the patient or a relative (n = 547; 77.9%). Where there was no external action (n = 1860; 72.3%), pharmacists concluded in about two-thirds of cases that the drug-drug interaction had been managed in the past. Other reasons not to intervene externally were for instance: incorrect alert; acceptable drug-drug interaction; or outcome of the interaction considered irrelevant. Adjusted for several variables, a first alert was found to be a main determinant for external action. After stratifying for first alerts no other significant determinants were found. CONCLUSIONS: A high frequency of drug-drug interaction alerts was found. Most concerned recurrent alerts, which were the main reason not to act externally. Concerning the assessment phase in the risk-management process, drug-drug interactions with no or low evidence/relevance should be reconsidered. Concerning the management of drug-drug interactions in pharmacies, the opportunity to actively suppress alerts for a certain period of time should be studied in more detail. There are indicators that the management of patient-orientated advice could be improved and a greater degree of consistency developed for the management of first and recurrent interaction alerts.

Disease and intolerability documentation in electronic patient records.

BACKGROUND: Documentation of diseases and intolerabilities in electronic patient records (EPRs) in pharmacies is needed to produce an alert in case a contraindicated medicine is prescribed. Limited research is available concerning EPRs in pharmacies. OBJECTIVE: To study the prevalence and quality of documentation of diseases and intolerabilities in EPRs in a sample of Dutch community pharmacies. METHODS: Each participating pharmacy (N = 79) collected data on one day in May 2003 for each patient enrolled into the study (N = 687) concerning demographics, drug use, and documentation of diseases and intolerabilities. RESULTS: In 57.4% of the EPRs, at least one disease and, in 7.9%, at least one intolerability was documented. Higher age, number of drugs used, and chronic disease score were associated with any documentation of a disease/intolerability in the EPR. The highest sensitivity scores (completeness) were found for diabetes (84.7%), asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (strict definition: 75.9%), and hypothyroidism (75.0%). Rather low values were found for prostatic hyperplasia (55.6%) and heart failure (29.4%). The positive predictive value (reliability) was high for hypothyroidism (100%) and diabetes (87.1%). CONCLUSIONS: In a selection of Dutch pharmacies, at least one documented disease and/or intolerability was found in the EPR of almost 60% of the patients. Certain diseases were documented to a relatively high degree; others had poorer levels of documentation. For optimal surveillance of drug-disease interactions in pharmacies, the frequency and quality of disease and intolerability documentation need further improvement.

Evaluation of the clinical value of pharmacists' modifications of prescription errors.

AIMS: Our objective was to examine the clinical value of pharmacists' interventions to correct prescription errors. METHODS: In this study, we reviewed a random sample of prescriptions that had been modified in pharmacies. These prescriptions were collected on one predetermined day between 25th February and 12th March 1999 from 141 Dutch community pharmacies. Each prescription modification was evaluated by a panel of reviewers, including representatives of five groups of health care professionals. After generally rating each modification as positive, negative, or neutral, the reviewers assessed its outcome (in terms of prevention of an adverse drug reaction [ADR], an improvement in effectiveness, both, or other), the probability and importance of improvements in effectiveness and/or the probability and seriousness of an ADR in the case of a nonintervention. Our analyses included 144 interventions from the first general assessment and a selection of 90 consistently rated 'positive' interventions (from all assessments). RESULTS: On average, one in 200 prescriptions (0.49%) was found to have been positively modified by Dutch community pharmacists. About half of these interventions (49.8%) were aimed at preventing ADRs; 29.2% were rated as a positive modification in the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy and 8.6% affected both effectiveness and ADR. Reviewers' ratings varied widely between different categories of drug-related problems (DRPs). The impact of individual interventions (n = 83) varied, and for 53% of these interventions it was estimated to be relatively high. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists' interventions led to modification of prescriptions for an array of DRPs. Such interventions can contribute positively to the quality of pharmacotherapy. By extrapolating our data, we estimated a daily occurrence of approximately 2700 positive interventions in all Dutch pharmacies (1.6 per pharmacy per day). Reviewers rated the impact of interventions on a patient's health as significant in a substantial number of cases.

Drug related problems identified by European community pharmacists in patients discharged from hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Drug related problems (DRPs) are perceived to occur frequently when patients are discharged from the hospital. Community pharmacists' interventions to detect, prevent and solve DRPs in this population are scarcely studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine the nature and frequency of DRPs in community pharmacies among patients discharged from hospitals in several countries, and to examine several variables related to these drug related problems. METHOD: The study was performed in 112 community pharmacies in Europe: Austria, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Community pharmacists asked patients with a prescription after discharge from hospital between February and April 2001 to participate in the study. A patient questionnaire was used to identify drug related problems. Pharmacists documented drug related problems, pharmacy interventions, type of prescriber and patient and pharmacy variables. RESULTS: 435 patients were included in the study. Drug related problems were identified in 277 patients (63.7%). Uncertainty or lack of knowledge about the aim or function of the drug (133; 29.5%) and side effects (105; 23.3%) were the most common DRPs. Practical problems were reported 56 times (12.4%) by patients. Pharmacists revealed 108 problems (24.0%) concerning dosage, drug duplication, drug interactions and prescribing errors. Patients with more changes in their drug regimens (drugs being stopped, new drugs started or dosage modifications) and using more drugs were more likely to develop DRPs. Community pharmacists recorded 305 interventions in 205 patients with DRPs. Pharmacists intervened mostly by patient medication counselling (39.0%) and practical instruction to the patient (17.7%). In 26.2% the intervention was directed towards the prescriber. In 28 cases (9.2%) the pharmacists' intervention led to a change of the drug regimen. CONCLUSION: This study shows that a systematic intervention by community pharmacists in discharged patients, or their proxies, is able to reveal a high number of DRPs that might be relevant for patient health outcomes. There should be more initiatives to insure continuity of care, since DRPs after discharge from hospital seem to be very common.

Frequency, nature and determinants of pharmacy compounded medicines in Dutch community pharmacies.

AIMS: To examine the frequency, nature and determinants of pharmacy compounded medicines in Dutch community pharmacies. METHODS: A prospective nested case-control study comparing prescriptions for pharmacy compounded medicines (cases) with non-pharmacy compounded medicines (controls) was carried out in 79 Dutch community pharmacies. 991 Prescriptions for compounded medicines (cases), dispensed by the pharmacy on a predetermined day in a specific period (29 March until 11 April 2001), and 993 prescriptions for non-compounded medicines (controls) randomly selected on the same day, were studied. The nature and frequency of compounded medicines as well as patient, drug and prescriber related determinants were assessed. In addition, some organisational characteristics, like compounding site and use of protocols, were investigated. Also, the value of compounded medicines in terms of the availability of an industrially compounded equivalent and patient specific reasons, as perceived by the participating pharmacists, was evaluated. RESULTS: The overall frequency of prescriptions for pharmacy compounded medicines in relation to the total number of prescriptions was 3.4%. This means 12.5 compounded medicines per pharmacy per day on average, but there was a large variation between pharmacies. Excluding the products purchased from specialised compounding companies (28.4%) and the small part of medicines coming from other pharmacies (5.2%), we found an overall frequency of 2.3% of actual compounding in the pharmacy itself. On average, approximately one employee was needed for compounding activities with a large variation between pharmacies. More than 13% of the pharmacists stated that they delivered more than 25% of their compounded medicines to other pharmacies. In 2 pharmacies (2.6%) no actual compounding took place. For 58% of the products manufactured in the pharmacy itself or coming from other pharmacies a (semi-) standardised protocol was used. Compared to non-compounded medicines we found a huge share of dermatological dosage forms among compounded medicines (62.1% versus 5.3%). Oral solutions and ear-nose-throat (ENT) products were also found relatively often. While no ATC class was very pronounced in the control group, the group of dermatologicals was prominently present in the case group (57%) followed by CNS agents (8.4%). The dermatologist was a very strong determinant of compounded medicines compared to GPs (ORadj 12.2 [6.3-23.6]). Patients of 12 years or younger received a significantly higher rate of compounded medicines than persons older than 12 years of age (ORadj 3.4 [2.5-4.8]). Compounding occurred almost twice as often when a medicine was prescribed for the first time compared to a repeat prescription (ORadj 1.8 [1.5-2.2]). In about 63% of the cases the pharmacist judged that an industrially produced medicine could not substitute for the compounded medicine. In about 33% of the compounded products they indicated a patient specific reason. In about 10% this reason concerned a strictly defined pharmaceutical care issue. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon our research, all Dutch community pharmacies compound more than 13,000 medicines per day (2.3% of all prescriptions). They consist mainly of dermatological preparations. Younger children (< 12 yr) receive a significantly higher rate of compounded medicines than other people. At least 1.2 compounded prescriptions per pharmacy per day have a specific pharmaceutical care reason according to the pharmacists.

Determinants for successful smoking cessation with bupropion in daily practice.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the patterns of use of bupropion in daily clinical practice and factors which determine successful smoking cessation. METHODS: Retrospective follow-up study in 36 pharmacies in the Netherlands. Patients who received at least one prescription for bupropion between January and April, 2000 were included. The pharmacists noted several characteristics relating to the patient, use of bupropion and co-medication. Patients were interviewed by telephone about their current and former smoking habits, the success of their smoking cessation and their experiences with bupropion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Abstinence rate and factors determining successful abstinence after six months. RESULTS: 322 patients with a least one prescription for bupropion were identified. In 93.5% of patients bupropion was prescribed by the general practitioner. Half of the patients were dispensed 30 or fewer tablets. Pharmacists interviewed 215 (66.8%) patients by telephone. Of these patients 58 (27.0%) still did not smoke six months after the prescription for bupropion. The number of tablets used, lack of co-morbidity, less than two previous attempts to stop smoking and private-insurance were associated with a higher rate of successful abstinence. CONCLUSION: Most patients do not use bupropion in accordance with the recommended period and did not receive the same degree of additional support provided in clinical trials. Nevertheless 27.0% of patients reported to have stopped smoking six months after the prescription for bupropion. This self-reported abstinence rate is only slightly lower than is reported in literature. This might be partly related to the fact that we did not validate smoking cessation by carbonmonoxide monitoring. Bupropion is not reimbursed in the Netherlands. It is difficult to assess whether patients' self-payment has led to the selection of motivated patients, or has been a barrier to finishing using bupropion.

Drug therapy for prevention of recurrent myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an evidence-based overview of drug treatment for long-term secondary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI). DATA SOURCES: We conducted searches of MEDLINE (1966-August 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, and the reference list of each identified study. STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION: Trials and meta-analyses were included using the following criteria: (1) randomized trials, (2) description of identification procedure, inclusion criteria, outcome measures, and statistical methods, (3) confirmed MIs, (4) treatment continued for at least 1 month, and (5) all-cause mortality as primary outcome; other events as secondary outcomes. All authors interpreted the results from trials that met the inclusion criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: In randomized clinical trials, low-dose aspirin, high-intensity oral anticoagulants, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and statins decreased the risk of mortality and reinfarction after MI. Randomized clinical trials using calcium-channel blockers, antiarrhythmics, and hormone replacement therapy did not show benefits in patients with prior MI. Effects of the combined use of aspirin or oral anticoagulants with beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors plus statins must be derived from subgroup analysis of trials, but seem to be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: The use of at least aspirin or an oral anticoagulant, a beta-blocker or an ACE inhibitor, plus a statin should be incorporated in the treatment routine. Clopidogrel treatment might be an alternative to aspirin. Standard addition of a beta-blocker to ACE inhibitor-treated patients without reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction seems to be untimely.

Oral antithrombotic use among myocardial infarction patients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of oral antithrombotics (i.e., antiplatelet agents, oral anticoagulants) after myocardial infarction (MI) in the Netherlands from 1988 to 1998. METHODS: Retrospective follow-up of 3800 patients with MI, using data from the PHARMO Record Linkage System. RESULTS: From 1988 to 1998, oral antithrombotic treatment increased significantly from 54.0% to 88.9%. In 1998, only 75.8% of patients who experienced a MI in the late 1980s received oral antithrombotic treatment compared with 94.4% of those who experienced a recent MI. CONCLUSIONS: Oral antithrombotics were considerably underused in patients with a past history of MI. Therefore, these patients should be reviewed for antithrombotic therapy to assess whether their failure to use oral antithrombotics was right or wrong, and whether treatment should be initiated if possible.