ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2012
Audit of renal drug dosing: comparison of 2 methods and evaluation of pharmacists' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour.
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 2012. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe renal dosing directive of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Pharmacy Program outlines an auditable pharmacy service whereby pharmacists are required to perform documentation (i.e., document their rationale) only if they do not adjust the dose of any medications listed in the directive.
objectiveTo compare the suitability of manual orders (hard copy) and reports from the pharmacy information system (computer-generated) for determining pharmacists' compliance with the renal dosing directive; to measure compliance with the renal dosing directive; and to determine pharmacists' opinions about audit programs.
methodsA retrospective audit was used to compare 400 manual orders with the corresponding orders in reports from the pharmacy information system, to determine compliance with the renal dosing directive. An e-mail survey was performed to gather pharmacists' opinions about audit programs.
resultsOf the 400 orders evaluated, 86 (22%) required consideration of a dose adjustment. Of these, 78 (91%) showed that dosing followed the guidelines for renal dysfunction in standard pharmacy references. Six (7%) of 86 manual orders and 8 (9%) of 86 pharmacy information system orders were not compliant with the renal dosing directive (i.e., no dosage adjustment and no documentation of rationale). Of 77 pharmacists approached, 34 (44%) completed the survey. Most respondents (31/34 [91%]) agreed that auditing is beneficial to patients, and the same number (31/34 [91%]) agreed that auditing provides important information to the pharmacy program. Only 17 (50%) were aware of medications listed in the renal dosing directive, and 14 (41%) felt that they had received sufficient education about pharmacy directives. Most respondents (29/34 [85%]) agreed that audits would reveal areas for improvement, and all (34/34 [100%]) would comply with any changes required to facilitate performance of an audit if such changes did not increase workload.
conclusionsSimilar results were obtained with the 2 auditing methods used for this study (manual orders and reports from the pharmacy information system). However, pharmacists' current use of electronic documentation limits the feasibility of pharmacy information system audits. Survey respondents claimed that they were not familiar with the renal dosing directive, but they did agree that auditing clinical services is beneficial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.