ArticleJournal of patient experience2019
Accuracy of Inpatient Recall of Interaction With a Pharmacist: A Validation Study From 2 Acute Care Teaching Hospitals.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to analyze and link patient experience surveys with administrative data to drive health service improvement - examples from Alberta, Canada.International journal of population data science · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch has shown that inpatients may not accurately report interacting with a pharmacist.
objectiveTo determine accuracy of patients' recollection of meeting with a pharmacist at 2 acute care teaching hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
methodsRetrospective review of 391 surveyed patients discharged from April 2013 to March 2014. Responses to meeting a pharmacist (yes/no) were compared with 2 reference standards: pharmacist documentation in patient charts and pharmacist clinical workload data. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were calculated.
resultsOne hundred ninety-five (49.9%) respondents reported meeting with a pharmacist. Of these, 71 (36.4%) had corresponding pharmacist chart documentation. Of the 196 respondents who reported not speaking with a pharmacist, 73 (37.2%) had documentation present. Compared with patient charts, sensitivity and specificity were 49.3% and 49.8%, respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 36.4% and 62.8%, respectively. Similar results were seen in comparison with the workload data.
conclusionsPatients often inaccurately reported meeting with a pharmacist in the acute care setting. The results are useful for pharmacist training, patient education, and for refinement of the current survey question.
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.