ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019
Pharmacist involvement to improve patient outcomes in lower gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective before and after study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Established and emerging roles for pharmacy in operating theatres: a scoping review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Interventions and impact of pharmacist-delivered services in perioperative setting on clinically important outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2024Article
- The effectiveness and safety of direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus treatment: A single-center experience in Saudi Arabia.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022Article
- Positive Patient Postoperative Outcomes with Pharmacotherapy: A Narrative Review including Perioperative-Specialty Pharmacist Interviews.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Enhanced recovery pathways were first introduced in the UK in 2002 (Enhanced Recovery Partnership Programme in Delivering enhanced recovery-helping patients to get better sooner after surgery. Department of Health, London, 2010). The aims of such pathways are to reduce patient length of stay whilst still providing high quality of care. Objectives To evaluate the impact of pharmacist involvement in enhanced recovery pathways. Setting A large 1200 bed tertiary hospital in the North of England. Methods The pre-post study included all patients admitted for major colorectal surgery during the period 2013-2016. Baseline data were collected on all patients seen pre-operatively in a nurse-led pre-admission clinic. The intervention was introduced where a dedicated surgical pharmacist pre-operatively reviewed patients from the time they were listed for surgery until discharge with a focus on medicines optimisation. Main outcome measure The primary outcome measures were length of stay along with the type and number of post-operative complications. Results 100 patients were included in this study, with 50 patients in the baseline group and 50 patients in the intervention group. There was a significant reduction in the median length of stay (baseline group-10.5 days; intervention group-7.5 days; P < 0.001). The total number of complications was also less in the intervention group (baseline group-125; intervention group-75; P > 0.05) as was the number of patients whom had no complications (P > 0.05). Conclusions Active pharmacist involvement in enhanced recovery protocols is associated with a significantly reduced median length of stay as well as an overall reduction in the total number of post-operative complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31452072What 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.