Observational studyBMJ open2017
Supporting the management of type 2 diabetes with pharmacist-led reviews: an observational analysis.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Improving the management of type 2 diabetes through large-scale general practice: the role of a data-driven and technology-enabled education programme.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Understandings, Attitudes, and Barriers About Diabetes Care: Analysis of Factors Influencing Community Pharmacists in China.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2021Article
- Community pharmacy integration within the primary care pathway for people with long-term conditions: a focus group study of patients', pharmacists' and GPs' experiences and expectations.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- Implementation of a Pharmacist-Led Diabetes Management Protocol.American health & drug benefits · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDescribe and assess the impact of a pharmacist-led patient review programme on the management and control of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
designUncontrolled prospective cohort study with before and after intervention data collection.
settingGeneral practices within NHS Slough Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).
participants5910 patients with T2D.
interventionsPharmacists reviewed 5910 patients and worked with general practice teams to schedule any of the 9 key care processes recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that the patients were lacking, to optimise medication and to make other interventions such as providing lifestyle advice.
main outcome measuresThe proportion of patients receiving the NICE-recommended 9 key care processes and proportion of patients whose glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP) or total cholesterol (TC) readings were over target before and after the intervention period.
resultsThe proportion of patients receiving all of the NICE-recommended 9 key care processes increased from 46% at project outset in April 2013 to 58% on completion in April 2014 and the percentage of patients achieving HbA1c, BP and TC targets all increased (65% to 70%, 70% to 76%, 78% to 82%, respectively). Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) data for Slough CCG showed the percentage of diabetic patients achieving target HbA1c, BP and TC readings increased from April 2013 to April 2014, but then diminished in the year after project completion.
conclusionsThe pharmacist-led review increased the number of key care processes administered and improved diabetic control during the year of programme delivery. The improvement abated during the year after, suggesting that such programmes should be ongoing rather than fixed term. The programme combined the strategic drive and project facilitation skills of Slough CCG, the general practice teams' knowledge of their patients and the clinical and information technology skills of an experienced pharmacist team.
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.