Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30846489›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2019

Development and performance evaluation of the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT): a prognostic model to target hospital pharmacists' input to prevent medication-related problems.

Cathy Geeson, Li Wei, Bryony Dean Franklin

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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.

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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
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.

Cathy GeesonPharmacy, Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Luton, UK cathy.geeson@ldh.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4340-4705
Li WeiResearch Department of Practice and Policy, UCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK.
Bryony Dean FranklinResearch Department of Practice and Policy, UCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CDRF-2014-05-033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedicines 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.

objectiveTo develop a prediction tool, the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT), to target patients most in need of pharmacists' input in hospital.

methodsPatients from adult medical wards at two UK hospitals were prospectively included into this cohort study. Data on medication-related problems (MRPs) were collected by pharmacists at the study sites as part of their routine daily clinical assessments. Data on potential risk factors, such as number of comorbidities and use of 'high-risk' medicines, were collected retrospectively. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to determine the relationship between risk factors and the study outcome: preventable MRPs that were at least moderate in severity. The model was internally validated and a simplified electronic scoring system developed.

resultsAmong 1503 eligible admissions, 610 (40.6%) experienced the study outcome. Eighteen risk factors were preselected for MOAT development, with 11 variables retained in the final model. The MOAT demonstrated fair predictive performance (concordance index 0.66) and good calibration. Two clinically relevant decision thresholds (ie, the minimum predicted risk probabilities to justify pharmacists' input) were selected, with sensitivities of 90% and 66% (specificity 30% and 61%); these equate to positive predictive values of 47% and 54%, respectively. Decision curve analysis suggests that the MOAT has potential value in clinical practice in guiding decision-making.

conclusionThe MOAT has potential to predict those patients most at risk of moderate or severe preventable MRPs, experienced by 41% of admissions. External validation is now required to establish predictive accuracy in a new group of patients.

Indexed as

Pharmacy Service, HospitalProgram DevelopmentSoftwareAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality Assurance, Health Careadverse eventsclinicaldecision supportepidemiology and detectionhealth services researchmedication safetypharmacists

Identifiers

PMID30846489
PMCPMC6716361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.