Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26297239›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2015

Impact of an enhanced pharmacy discharge service on prescribing appropriateness criteria: a randomised controlled trial.

Benjamin J Basger, Rebekah J Moles, Timothy F Chen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Pharmacist Prescribing at Inpatient Discharge in Alberta.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

3 authors.

Benjamin J BasgerFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, A15 Science Road, Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia. ben.basger@sydney.edu.au.
Rebekah J MolesFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, A15 Science Road, Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Timothy F ChenFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, A15 Science Road, Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder people are at increased risk of drug-related problems (DRPs) caused by inappropriate use or underuse of medications which may be increased during care transitions.

objectiveTo examine the effects of applying a validated prescribing appropriateness criteria-set during medication review in a cohort of older (≥65 years) Australians at the time of discharge from hospital.

settingPrivate hospital and homes of older patients in Sydney, Australia.

methodsCognitively well English speaking patients aged 65 years or over taking five or more medications were recruited. A prescribing appropriateness criteria-set and SF-36 health-related quality of life health (HRQoL) survey were applied to all patients at discharge. Patients were then randomly assigned to receive either usual care (control, n = 91) or discharge medication counselling and a medication review by a clinical pharmacist (intervention, n = 92). Medication review recommendations were sent to the general practitioners of intervention group patients. All patients were followed up at 3 months post discharge, where the prescribing appropriateness criteria-set was reapplied and HRQoL survey repeated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES change in the number of prescribing appropriateness criteria met; change in HRQoL; number and causes of DRPS identified by medication review; intervention patient medication recommendation implementation rates.

resultsThere was no significant difference in the number of criteria applicable and met in intervention patients, compared to control patients, between follow-up and discharge (0.09 ≤ p ≤ 0.97). While the difference between groups was positive at follow-up for SF-36 scores, the only domain that reached statistical significance was that for vitality (p = 0.04). Eighty-eight intervention patient medication reviews identified 750 causes of DRPs (8.5 ± 2.7 per patient). No causes of DRPs were identified in four patients. Of these causes, 76.4 % (573/750) were identified by application of the prescribing appropriateness criteria-set. GPs implemented a relatively low number (42.4 %, 318/750) of recommendations.

conclusionApplication of a prescribing appropriateness criteria-set during medication review in intervention patients did not increase the number of criteria met, nor result in a significant improvement in HRQoL. Higher recommendation implementation rates may require additional facilitators, including a higher quality of collaboration.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMedication Therapy ManagementPatient DischargePharmacy Service, HospitalPolypharmacyAustraliaDRPsDrug-related problemsInappropriate prescribingOverprescribingPrescribing appropriateness criteriaPrivate hospitalUnderprescribing

Identifiers

PMID26297239

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.