Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23715760›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2013

Identification of drug-related problems by a clinical pharmacist in addition to computerized alerts.

Rianne J Zaal, Mark M P M Jansen, Marjolijn Duisenberg-van Essenberg, Cees C Tijssen, Jan A Roukema, Patricia M L A van den Bemt

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Inappropriate non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants prescriptions: be cautious with dose reductions.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Standardization of clinical pharmacist's activities: Methodology.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2017
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rianne J ZaalDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, r.zaal@erasmusmc.nl.
Mark M P M Jansen
Marjolijn Duisenberg-van Essenberg
Cees C Tijssen
Jan A Roukema
Patricia M L A van den Bemt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth clinical pharmacists and computerized physician order entry systems with clinical decision support (CPOE/CDSS) can reduce drug-related problems (DRPs). However, the contribution of a clinical pharmacist in addition to CPOE/CDSS has not been established in a prospective study.

objectiveTo determine which DRPs can be identified by a clinical pharmacist in a setting with routine use of CPOE/CDSS.

settingTwo surgical and two neurological wards in St. Elisabeth hospital, a 600-bed teaching hospital in the Netherlands.

methodsIn this observational prospective follow-up study a clinical pharmacist reviewed the pharmacotherapy of patients admitted to surgical and neurological wards to identify DRPs (i.e. medication errors and adverse drug events) and discussed the relevance of identified problems and interventions to resolve these with the responsible physician. Acceptance of the proposed interventions and the presence of alerts in CPOE/CDSS were assessed. Primary outcome was the proportion of DRPs identified by the clinical pharmacist that also triggered a CPOE/CDSS alert. Differences between the DRPs that generated an alert and those that did not were expressed as relative risks or analyzed with Chi square statistics or Mann-Whitney U tests.

main outcome measureThe proportion of drug-related problems identified by the clinical pharmacist that also generated an alert in the CPOE/CDSS.

resultsDuring 1206 medication reviews, 442 potential DRPs were identified; 286 (65 %) DRPs were considered relevant and 247 (56 %) of the proposed interventions were accepted. A CPOE/CDSS alert was generated for 35 (8 %) of the DRPs the clinical pharmacist identified. The only difference between problems that triggered an alert and those that did not was the class of the DRP (indication 23 vs. 36 %, effectiveness 23 vs. 13 %, safety 23 vs. 10 % and pharmaceutical care issues 31 vs. 42 %, p = 0.02). CPOE/CDSS triggered 623 additional alerts that were handled during routine pharmacy service.

conclusionsAs most DRPs identified by a clinical pharmacist were not detected in daily clinical practice by CPOE/CDSS, a clinical pharmacist contributes to reducing DRPs. The sensitivity of CPOE/CDSS to detect certain classes of problems should be optimized.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDrug MonitoringDrug Therapy, Computer-AssistedModels, BiologicalPharmacy Service, HospitalAgedAged, 80 and overDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHospitals, TeachingHumansMaleMedication ErrorsMiddle AgedNetherlands

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.