ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
Patient and health professional satisfaction with an interdisciplinary patient safety program.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice Guidelines for the Value Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services (version 2).Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Development and psychometric evaluation of the hospitalized patients' expectations for treatment scale-patient version-satisfaction scale.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Healthcare Service Quality Evaluated Using the Degree of Satisfaction of Patients in Romanian Community Pharmacies.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Patient perceptions and experiences with medication-related activities in the emergency department: a qualitative study.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- The effect of emergency department pharmacists on drug overuse and drug underuse in patients with an ADE-related hospitalisation: a controlled intervention study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Measuring humanistic outcomes is an important component of valuating healthcare services. There is a paucity of data on satisfaction with pharmacist implemented clinical services in long-term care settings. Objective To evaluate patient and health professional (HP) satisfaction with an interdisciplinary patient safety program performed in elderly patients with polypharmacy admitted to a long-term care hospital (LTCH). Method An interventional, longitudinal, prospective study was conducted in a Spanish LTCH. Pharmacist conducted the pharmacotherapy follow-up (reconciliation, pharmacotherapeutic optimization and educational interviews). Two satisfaction surveys were designed on a 10-point Likert-type scale. The patient survey was administered at discharge. The HP survey included the following dimensions: knowledge and program importance, pharmacist skills and pharmacist contributions to the interdisciplinary team. A reliability analysis was performed. Results 123 surveys were completed and returned; 74 patient surveys (response rate 97.4%) and 49 HP surveys (response rate 98.0%). The overall mean score of the patient survey was 9.46 ± 0.87, resulting in 82.4% very satisfied and 17.6% satisfied. The overall mean score of the HP survey was 8.85 ± 1.42, resulting in 65.3% very satisfied and 30.6% satisfied. Conclusion Elderly patients with polypharmacy and HPs reported high levels of satisfaction with the interdisciplinary patient safety program implemented in an LTCH. This positive response supports the value of pharmacists for managing older high-risk populations.
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.