ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy
Designing a Pharmacist Opioid Safety and Intervention Tool.
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy. 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.
- Evaluating a Pharmacist-Led Opioid Stewardship Initiative at an Urban Teaching Hospital.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2021Article
- Article
- Opioid Stewardship: Moving Beyond the "Why" to the "How".The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the recent increase in opioid overdoses across Canada, few pharmacy-led initiatives have been implemented to address issues related to opioid prescribing in the hospital setting.
objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to develop a clinical tool, intended for use by hospital pharmacists and informed by best practices from the literature, that would provide a structured approach to enhancing the safety of opioid prescribing. The secondary objective was to collect pharmacists' opinions about the feasibility and utility of this tool.
methodsA comprehensive literature search and pharmacist focus group analysis provided content for development of a candidate clinical tool. This tool was then piloted by clinical pharmacists working on general medical and surgical units in a single hospital. Pharmacists participating in the pilot were invited to complete an online survey concerning their perceptions of the tool. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the survey results.
resultsThe literature search and focus group analysis led to development of a candidate clinical tool that focused on Medication review, Optimization, Reassessment, and Education (MORE). It included key risk factors relating to opioid safety, along with suggested mitigating strategies. The MORE tool was piloted for 3 weeks by 14 clinical pharmacists, 9 of whom responded to the subsequent survey. Five respondents indicated that the clinical tool increased their ability to identify risk factors. Five respondents also noted an increase in their ability to identify possible interventions. Most respondents felt that the tool was useful and that it would be feasible to integrate it into their practice; however, they noted that a more streamlined version could improve ease of use.
conclusionsThe MORE tool was well received by clinical pharmacists. Implementation of the tool into routine practice requires additional changes to improve ease of use. Suggestions for modifying and streamlining the tool will be incorporated into future versions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32109955PMC7023926What 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.