Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26135582›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2015

Design of the POINT study: Pharmacotherapy Optimisation through Integration of a Non-dispensing pharmacist in a primary care Team (POINT).

Ankie C M Hazen, Vivianne M Sloeserwij, Dorien L M Zwart, Antoinette A de Bont, Marcel L Bouvy, Johan J de Gier, Niek J de Wit, Anne J Leendertse

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ankie C M HazenDepartment of General Practice, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. a.c.m.hazen@umcutrecht.nl.
Vivianne M SloeserwijDepartment of General Practice, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. v.sloeserwij@umcutrecht.nl.
Dorien L M ZwartDepartment of General Practice, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. d.zwart@umcutrecht.nl.
Antoinette A de BontInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. debont@bmg.eur.nl.
Marcel L BouvyDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. m.l.bouvy@uu.nl.
Johan J de GierDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.j.de.gier@rug.nl.
Niek J de WitDepartment of General Practice, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. n.j.dewit@umcutrecht.nl.
Anne J LeendertseDepartment of General Practice, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. a.j.leendertse-3@umcutrecht.nl.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Groningen · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the Netherlands, 5.6 % of acute hospital admissions are medication-related. Almost half of these admissions are potentially preventable. Reviewing medication in patients at risk in primary care might prevent these hospital admissions. At present, implementation of medication reviews in primary care is suboptimal: pharmacists lack access to patient information, pharmacists are short of clinical knowledge and skills, and working processes of pharmacists (focus on dispensing) and general practitioners (focus on clinical practice) match poorly. Integration of the pharmacist in the primary health care team might improve pharmaceutical care outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist in general practice on the safety of pharmacotherapy in the Netherlands.

methodsThe POINT study is a non-randomised controlled intervention study with pre-post comparison in an integrated primary care setting. We compare three different models of pharmaceutical care provision in primary care: 1) a non-dispensing pharmacist as an integral member of a primary care team, 2) a pharmacist in a community pharmacy with a predefined training in performing medication reviews and 3) a pharmacist in a community pharmacy (care as usual). In all models, GPs remain accountable for individual medication prescription. In the first model, ten non-dispensing clinical pharmacists are posted in ten primary care practices (including 5 - 10 000 patients each) for a period of 15 months. These non-dispensing pharmacists perform patient consultations, including medication reviews, and share responsibility for the pharmaceutical care provided in the practice. The two other groups consist of ten primary care practices with collaborating pharmacists. The main outcome measurement is the number of medication-related hospital admissions during follow-up. Secondary outcome measurements are potential medication errors, drug burden index and costs. Parallel to this study, a qualitative study is conducted to evaluate the feasibility of introducing a NDP in general practice. DISCUSSION: As the POINT study is a large-scale intervention study, it should provide evidence as to whether integration of a non-dispensing clinical pharmacist in primary care will result in safer pharmacotherapy. The qualitative study also generates knowledge on the optimal implementation of this model in primary care. Results are expected in 2016. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4389 , The Netherlands National Trial Register, 07-01-2014.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsCommunity Pharmacy ServicesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedGeneral PracticeHospitalizationHumansMedication ErrorsNetherlandsPatient Care TeamPharmaceutical ServicesPharmacistsPolypharmacyPrimary Health CareProfessional Role

Identifiers

PMID26135582
PMCPMC4489035
OpenAlexW1848944651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.