Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27742628›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

New transfer of care initiative of electronic referral from hospital to community pharmacy in England: a formative service evaluation.

Hamde Nazar, Steven Brice, Nasima Akhter, Adetayo Kasim, Ann Gunning, Sarah P Slight, Neil W Watson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Consensus methodology to investigate the crucial referral criteria to pharmacist-led counseling clinics in Makkah City.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. e-Interconsultations between a hospital pharmacy service and primary care pharmacy units in Spain.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Post-discharge medicines management: the experiences, perceptions and roles of older people and their family carers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hamde NazarSchool of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton-On-Tees, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3168-5386
Steven BricePharmacy Department, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Nasima AkhterWolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, UK.
Adetayo KasimWolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, UK.
Ann GunningHead of Services and Support, North of Tyne Local Pharmaceutical Committee, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Sarah P SlightSchool of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton-On-Tees, UK.
Neil W WatsonPharmacy Department, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Durham University · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate an electronic patient referral system from one UK hospital Trust to community pharmacies across the North East of England.

settingTwo hospital sites in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and 207 community pharmacies.

participantsInpatients who were considered to benefit from on-going support and continuity of care after leaving hospital.

interventionElectronic transmission of an information related to patient's medicines to their nominated community pharmacy. Community pharmacists to provide a follow-up consultation tailored to the individual patient needs. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Number of referrals made to and received by different types of pharmacies; reasons for referrals; accepted/completed and rejected referred rates; reasons for rejections by community pharmacists; time to action referrals; details of the follow-up consultations; readmission rates at 30, 60 and 90 days post referral and number of hospital bed days.

results2029 inpatients were referred over a 13-month period (1 July 2014-31 July 2015). Only 31% (n=619) of these patients participated in a follow-up consultation; 47% (n=955) of referrals were rejected by community pharmacies with the most common reason being 'patient was uncontactable' (35%, n=138). Most referrals were accepted/completed within 7 days of receipt and most rejections were made >2 weeks after referral receipt. Most referred patients were over 60 years of age and referred for a Medicines Use Review (MUR) or enrolment for the New Medicines Service (NMS). Those patients who received a community pharmacist follow-up consultation had statistically significant lower rates of readmissions and shorter hospital stays than those patients without a follow-up consultation.

conclusionsHospital pharmacy staff were able to use an information technology (IT) platform to improve the coordination of care for patients transitioning back home from hospital. Community pharmacists were able to contact the majority of patients and results indicate that patients receiving a follow-up consultation may have lower rates of readmission and shorter hospital stays.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsAdolescentAdultAgedChildClinical Pharmacy Information SystemsCommunity Pharmacy ServicesEnglandFemaleHospitalsHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPatient ReadmissionPatient Transfercare transitionscontinuity of carehealth boundariesinformation transfer

Identifiers

PMID27742628
PMCPMC5073802
OpenAlexW2530304689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.