Observational studyEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2020
Promoting clinical pharmacy services through advanced medication review in the emergency department.
Observational study in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standardizing hospital pharmacy practice in home hospitalization: results from a multidisciplinary Delphi consensus in Spain.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- [Adverse drug reactions as cause of nonspecific symptoms in patients in the emergency department].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2023Review
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
Objectives: To determine if an advanced medication review carried out in the emergency department (ED) increases the number of pharmacotherapy recommendations (PR) and the severity of the detected prescribing errors. Methods: We designed an analytic observational prospective cohort study with preintervention assessment (PRE) and postintervention assessment (POST). In PRE, prescription review was done by pharmacists located in the pharmacy department; they took into account only the information provided by the computerised physician order entry system. In POST, pharmacists were physically present in the ED and performed an advanced medication review. The main variables were number of PR and the severity of detected prescribing errors according to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) severity index. Clinical variables were number of calls to physicians on duty during the first 48 hours of admission, readmissions at 30 days, visits to the ED at 30 days, inhospital mortality and length of stay. Results: The study population comprised 102 patients (51 in PRE and 51 in POST). In PRE, the number of PR per patient was 1.1; in POST, this value increased by 53% (1.7 PR per patient; P=0.014), especially in the case of PR related to home medications. The severity of prescribing errors was higher in POST (P=0.004). There was a trend towards better results for all clinical outcomes in POST although statistical significance was not reached. Conclusions: An advanced medication review in the ED increases the number of PR and the severity of the detected prescribing errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.