Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28615279›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2017

Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT): a prognostic model to target hospital pharmacists' input to improve patient outcomes. Protocol for an observational study.

Cathy Geeson, Li Wei, Bryony Dean Franklin

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02582463 (Development of the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT02582463 completednot on this map

Development of the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT) - Targeting Hospital Pharmacists' Input to Reduce Risks and Improve Patient Outcomes

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2016 to 2018Enrolled1,552ConditionsMedicines Optimisation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
    2017
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cathy GeesonPharmacy, Luton and Dunstable University Hospital, Luton, Bedfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4340-4705
Li WeiUCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8840-7267
Bryony Dean FranklinUCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2892-1245

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZG/2/540Department of Health CDRF-2014-05-033Medical Research Council G106/1249
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMedicines optimisation is a key role for hospital pharmacists, but with ever-increasing demands on services there is a need to increase efficiency while maintaining patient safety. The aim of this study is to develop a prognostic model, the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT), which can be used to target patients most in need of pharmacists' input while in hospital. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MOAT will be developed following recommendations of the Prognosis Research Strategy partnership. Using a cohort study we will prospectively include 1500 adult patients from the medical wards of two UK hospitals. Data on medication-related problems (MRPs) experienced by study patients will be collected by pharmacists at the study sites as part of their routine daily clinical assessment of patients. Data on potential risk factors such as polypharmacy, renal impairment and the use of 'high risk' medicines will be collected retrospectively from the information departments at the study sites, laboratory reporting systems and patient medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models will then be used to determine the relationship between potential risk factors and the study outcome of preventable MRPs that are at least moderate in severity. Bootstrapping will be used to adjust the MOAT for optimism, and predictive performance will be assessed using calibration and discrimination. A simplified scoring system will also be developed, which will be assessed for sensitivity and specificity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Proportionate Review Service Sub-Committee of the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee Wales REC 7 (16/WA/0016) and the Health Research Authority (project ID 197298). We plan to disseminate the results via presentations at relevant patient/public, professional, academic and scientific meetings and conferences, and will submit findings for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02582463.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMedical Order Entry SystemsMedication ErrorsMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisOutcome Assessment, Health CarePharmacistsPrognosisResearch DesignRetrospective StudiesAdverse eventsEpidemiologyRisk management

Identifiers

PMID28615279
PMCPMC5726068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.