ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2019
The Care Home Independent Prescribing Pharmacist Study (CHIPPS)-a non-randomised feasibility study of independent pharmacist prescribing in care homes.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives of pharmacist roles in residential aged care: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Pooled it
- Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review and narrative synthesis of pharmacist provided medicines optimisation services in care homes for older people to inform the development of a generic training or accreditation process.The International journal of pharmacy practice · 2020Pooled it
- What happens when pharmacist independent prescribers lead on medicine management in older people's care homes: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2023Trial
- Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of pharmacist independent prescribers in care homes: cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Trial
- Evaluation of a training programme for Pharmacist Independent Prescribers in a care home medicine management intervention.BMC medical education · 2022Trial
- Process evaluation for the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS).BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Addressing potentially inappropriate prescribing in care homes: regional evaluation of a pharmacist-led model in Northern Ireland.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Service delivery and the role of clinical pharmacists in UK primary care for older people, including people with dementia: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing implementation fidelity of an on-site pharmacist intervention within Australian residential aged care facilities: A mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- General practitioners' role in improving health care in care homes: a realist review.Family practice · 2023Review
- Pilot and feasibility studies: extending the conceptual framework.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Characterising the outcomes, impacts and implementation challenges of advanced clinical practice roles in the UK: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Article
- A systems approach to identifying the challenges of implementing deprescribing in older adults across different health-care settings and countries: a narrative review.Expert review of clinical pharmacology · 2020Review
- 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
18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResidents in care homes are often very frail, have complex medicine regimens and are at high risk of adverse drug events. It has been recommended that one healthcare professional should assume responsibility for their medicines management. We propose that this could be a pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP). This feasibility study aimed to test and refine the service specification and proposed study processes to inform the design and outcome measures of a definitive randomised controlled trial to examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of PIPs working in care homes compared to usual care. Specific objectives included testing processes for participant identification, recruitment and consent and assessing retention rates; determining suitability of outcome measures and data collection processes from care homes and GP practices to inform selection of a primary outcome measure; assessing service and research acceptability; and testing and refining the service specification.
methodsMixed methods (routine data, questionnaires and focus groups/interviews) were used in this non-randomised open feasibility study of a 3-month PIP intervention in care homes for older people. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months. One PIP, trained in service delivery, one GP practice and up to three care homes were recruited at each of four UK locations. For ten eligible residents (≥ 65 years, on at least one regular medication) in each home, the PIP undertook management of medicines, repeat prescription authorisation, referral to other healthcare professionals and staff training. Outcomes (falls, medications, resident's quality of life and activities of daily living, mental state and adverse events) were described at baseline and follow-up and assessed for inclusion in the main study. Participants' views post-intervention were captured in audio-recorded focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were thematically analysed.
resultsAcross the four locations, 44 GP practices and 16 PIPs expressed interest in taking part; all care homes invited agreed to take part. Two thirds of residents approached consented to participate (53/86). Forty residents were recruited (mean age 84 years; 61% (24) were female), and 38 participants remained at 3 months (two died). All GP practices, PIPs and care homes were retained. The number of falls per participating resident was selected as the primary outcome, following assessment of the different outcome measures against predetermined criteria. The chosen secondary outcomes/outcome measures include total falls, drug burden index (DBI), hospitalisations, mortality, activities of daily living (Barthel (proxy)) and quality of life (ED-5Q-5 L (face-to-face and proxy)) and selected items from the STOPP/START guidance that could be assessed without need for clinical judgement. No adverse drug events were reported. The PIP service was generally well received by the majority of stakeholders (care home staff, GPS, residents, relatives and other health care professionals). PIPs reported feeling more confident implementing change following the training but reported challenges accommodating the new service within their existing workload.
conclusionImplementing a PIP service in care homes is feasible and acceptable to care home residents, staff and clinicians. Findings have informed refinements to the service specification, PIP training, recruitment to the future RCT and the choice of outcomes and outcome measures. The full RCT with internal pilot started in February 2016 and results are expected to be available in mid late 2020.
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.