ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2005
Hospital pharmacists' awareness of a new antibiotic guideline in the UK: implications for practice.
Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPharmacists play an important role in the review of local hospital guidelines. British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines for the management of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were updated in 2001, and it is important that individual hospital recommendations are based upon this national guidance. The aim of this study was to identify UK Chief Pharmacists' awareness of these updated guidelines one year after their publication. Secondary aims were to identify whether pharmacists had subsequently initiated revision of institutional CAP guidelines, and what roles different professional staff had performed in this process.
methodA self-completion postal questionnaire was sent to the Chief Pharmacist (or their nominated staff) in 253 UK NHS hospitals in November 2002. This aimed to identify issues relating to their awareness of the 2001 BTS guidelines and subsequent revision of their hospital's guidelines.
results188 questionnaires were returned (a response rate of 74%), of which 164 hospitals had local antibiotic prescribing guidelines. Respondents in 29% of these hospitals were unaware of the 2001 BTS publication and institutional guidelines had been revised in only 51% of hospitals where the Chief Pharmacist was purportedly aware of the new BTS guidance. Generally, more staff types were involved in revising guidelines than initiating revision.
conclusionsVariability existed in both Chief Pharmacists' awareness of new national guidance and subsequent review processes operating in individual hospitals. A lack of proactive reaction to new national guidance was identified in some hospitals, and it is hoped that the establishment of specialist "infectious diseases pharmacists" will facilitate the review of institutional antibiotic prescribing guidelines in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16096890What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.