ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019
Using telehealth to enable collaboration of pharmacists and geriatricians in residential medication management reviews.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The IMPART (IMproving PAlliative care in Residential aged care using Telehealth) trial: a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial protocol.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Medication-related infrastructure and medication reviews in nursing homes-a rapid appraisal study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Defining the concepts of a smart nursing home and its potential technology utilities that integrate medical services and are acceptable to stakeholders: a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Practical issues impede optimum collaboration between pharmacists and other clinical specialists in the current Australian residential medication review services which potentially affect efficiency, timeliness and quality of outcomes. Objective This mixed methods study aimed to explore the potential value of an existing telehealth platform to enable collaboration of pharmacists and geriatricians in residential medication reviews. Setting Long term care facilities in Australia. Method Twenty vignettes of aged care residents were prepared and independently reviewed by five pharmacists and five geriatricians using a telehealth platform to record their recommendations for medications. The geriatricians were subsequently asked to re-consider their recommendations after being provided with a pharmacist's report. Main outcome measure The level of agreement between pharmacists and between geriatricians, changes in the mean number of medications after pharmacists' and geriatricians' reviews, number of changes in geriatricians' recommendations after viewing a pharmacist's report, and pharmacists' and geriatricians' feedback. Results Both pharmacists and geriatricians had fair agreement about their recommendations for medications (kappa of 0.30 and 0.31 respectively). The mean number of medications over 20 cases was significantly reduced from a baseline of 14.9 to 13.4 by pharmacists, and to 12.3 by geriatricians after their reviews. There was disagreement between geriatricians and pharmacists on 430/1485 (29%) recommendations on medications; after viewing a pharmacist's report, geriatricians changed their mind in 51 occasions. Geriatricians found the pharmacist report useful in 72% of the cases. The majority of the pharmacists (4/5) were prepared to use the online system routinely. Conclusion The tested telehealth platform has the potential of being used as a part of routine practice to improve accessibility of the service and to enable synchronous collaboration among healthcare professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31401711What 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.