ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2014
Evaluation of a controlled, national collaboration study on a clinical pharmacy service of screening for risk medications.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of interventions on the appropriate use of opioids for noncancer pain among hospital inpatients: A systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Pooled it
- Implementation status of safety measures to prevent errors with non-oncologic methotrexate: surveys in community and hospital pharmacies.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Interventions to deprescribe potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: Lost in translation?Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics · 2020Review
- Analysis of drug-related problems in three departments of a German University hospital.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk medications are frequently associated with adverse events and hospitalisations.
objectiveTo evaluate a risk medication screening service for in-patients at Danish hospitals.
settingDanish hospitals.
methodsThe study was designed as a controlled, prospective intervention study. Inpatients were screened for the use of five risk medications; anticoagulants, digoxin, methotrexate, NSAIDs and opioids, and during the intervention period recommendations were made by clinical pharmacists according to a standardized intervention scheme. The recommendations were discussed with the physician face-to-face.
main outcome measureReadmissions within 6 months after discharge.
resultsIn total, 1,007 control and 775 intervention patients were included in the study. The study found that half of the patients (50 % during the control and 48 % during the intervention period) admitted to Danish hospitals were treated with at least one of the five selected risk medications, significantly more drug related problems (DRPs) were identified during the control period (1.7/patient during the control and 1.4/patient during the intervention period (p < 0.001)), and the acceptance rate of recommendations (62 %) was similar to medication management service studies in the literature (39-100 %). However, no impact on outcome measures was found. The majority (69 %) of the clinical pharmacists reported that they had increased their professional competences by participating in the study, and that a national clinical pharmacy study may be used in promoting and implementing a unique clinical pharmacy service throughout the country (67 %).
conclusionThe study showed that a national screening service for risk medications could help identify and address DRPs. Despite no impact on the selected outcome measures, it is likely that the screening service could be included in a medication management review with further focus on the individual patient to ensure positive outcomes, or that the screening service should be delivered to selected patients groups, who might have maximum benefit of the service.
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.