Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31157062›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2018

Evidence for the outcomes and impact of clinical pharmacy: context of UK hospital pharmacy practice.

Raliat Onatade, Sandra Appiah, Martin Stephens, Hemda Garelick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Raliat OnatadePharmacy Department, Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9206-9755
Sandra AppiahDepartment of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, London, UK.
Martin StephensPharmacy, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Hemda GarelickDepartment of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe role of clinical pharmacists in hospitals has evolved and continues to expand. In the UK, outside of a few national policy drivers, there are no agreed priorities, measures or defined outcomes for hospital clinical pharmacy (CP). This paper aims to (1) highlight the need to identify and prioritise specific CP roles, responsibilities and practices that will bring the greatest benefit to patients and health systems and (2) describe systematic weaknesses in current research methodologies for evaluating CP services and propose a different approach.

methodPublished reviews of CP services are discussed using the Economic, Clinical and Humanistic Outcomes framework. Recurring themes regarding study methodologies, measurements and outcomes are used to highlight current weaknesses in studies evaluating CP.

resultsPublished studies aiming to demonstrate the economic, clinical or humanistic outcomes of CP often suffer from poor research design and inconsistencies in interventions, measurements and outcomes. This has caused difficulties in drawing meaningful conclusions regarding CP's definitive contribution to patient outcomes.

conclusionThere is a need for more research work in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals, employing a different paradigm to address some of the weaknesses of existing research on CP practice. We propose a mixed-methods approach, including qualitative research designs, and with emphasis on cost-consequence analyses for economic evaluations. This approach will provide more meaningful data to inform policy and demonstrate the contribution of hospital CP activities to patient care and the NHS.

Indexed as

clinical outcomesclinical pharmacyeconomic outcomeshospitalhumanistic outcomesresearch methodologiesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID31157062
PMCPMC6457153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.