Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31338204›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2019

The Care Home Independent Prescribing Pharmacist Study (CHIPPS)-a non-randomised feasibility study of independent pharmacist prescribing in care homes.

Jacqueline Inch, Frances Notman, Christine M Bond, David P Alldred, Antony Arthur, Annie Blyth, Amrit Daffu-O'Reilly, Joanna Ford, Carmel M Hughes, Vivienne Maskrey and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jacqueline Inch1Primary Care, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD Scotland.
Frances Notman1Primary Care, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD Scotland.
Christine M Bond1Primary Care, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD Scotland.ORCID 0000-0003-0429-5208
David P Alldred2School of Healthcare, Baines Wing, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Antony Arthur3School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Annie Blyth4Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Amrit Daffu-O'Reilly2School of Healthcare, Baines Wing, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Joanna Ford5Older Peoples Medicine, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Carmel M Hughes6School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Vivienne Maskrey4Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Anna Millar6School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Phyo K Myint1Primary Care, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD Scotland.
Fiona M Poland7School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Lee Shepstone4Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Arnold Zermansky8School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Richard Holland9Leicester Medical School, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
David Wright10School of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
CHIPPS Team
University of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBQueen's University Belfast · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0613-20007
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID31338204
PMCPMC6625047
OpenAlexW2957852258

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.