Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31637320›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2019

Impact of a pharmacist intervention at an intensive care rehabilitation clinic.

Pamela MacTavish, Tara Quasim, Martin Shaw, Helen Devine, Malcolm Daniel, John Kinsella, Carl Fenelon, Rakesh Kishore, Theodore J Iwashyna, Joanne McPeake

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Medication-related problems in critical care survivors: a systematic review.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Analysis of clinical pharmacists' interventions in a rehabilitation setting.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. COVID-19: Moving beyond the pandemic.Journal of advanced nursing · 2020
    Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Pamela MacTavishPharamcy Department, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Tara QuasimIntensive Care Unit, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Martin ShawClinical Physics, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Helen DevineIntensive Care Unit, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Malcolm DanielIntensive Care Unit, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
John KinsellaSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Carl FenelonIntensive Care Unit, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Rakesh KishoreIntensive Care Unit, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Theodore J IwashynaMichigan State University, Ann Arbour, Michigan, USA.
Joanne McPeakeIntensive Care Unit, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8206-6801

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWhile disruptions in medications are common among patients who survive critical illness, there is limited information about specific medication-related problems among survivors of critical care. This study sought to determine the prevalence of specific medication-related problems detected in patients, seen after critical care discharge.

designConsecutive patients attending an intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up programme were included in this single-centre service evaluation.

settingTertiary care regional centre in Scotland (UK).

participants47 patients reviewed after critical care discharge at an ICU follow-up programme.

interventionsPharmacists conducted a full medication review, including: medicines reconciliation, assessing the appropriateness of each prescribed medication, identification of any medication-related problems and checking adherence. MEASUREMENTS: Medication-related problems in patients following critical care discharge. Interventions and medication-related problems were systematically graded and risk factors were identified using an adapted version of the National Patient Safety Agency Risk Matrix. MAIN

results69 medication-related problems were identified in 38 (81%) of the 47 patients. The most common documented problem was drug omission (29%). 64% of the medication-related problems identified were classified as either moderate or major. The number of pain medications prescribed at discharge from intensive care was predictive of medication-related problems (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.26, p=0.03).

conclusionsMedication problems are common following critical care. Better communication of medication changes both to patients and their ongoing care providers may be beneficial following a critical care admission. In the absence of highly effective communication, a pharmacy intervention may contribute substantially to an intensive care rehabilitation or recovery programme.

Indexed as

clinical pharmacologycritical careevaluation methodologyhealthcare quality improvementmedical error, measurement/epidemiology

Identifiers

PMID31637320
PMCPMC6768365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.