Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32162188›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2020

Home medicines reviews and residential medication management reviews in Western Australia.

Petra Czarniak, Laetitia Hattingh, Tin Fei Sim, Richard Parsons, Bronwen Wright, Bruce Sunderland

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Petra CzarniakSchool of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia. P.Czarniak@curtin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7212-0667
Laetitia HattinghGold Coast Health, Gold Coast, QLD, 4215, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4553-743X
Tin Fei SimSchool of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0068-5006
Richard ParsonsSchool of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5691-0084
Bronwen WrightSchool of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2865-5071
Bruce SunderlandSchool of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6214-995X

Funding

J M O'Hara Research Grant, Pharmaceutical Society of Western Australia 2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Australian government funding for Residential Medication Management Reviews and Home Medicines Reviews commenced in 1997 and 2001 respectively. Limited data are available on their provision in Australia. Objective To investigate the extent and characteristics of Home Medicines Review and Residential Medication Management Review services provided by accredited pharmacists practising in Western Australia. Setting Pharmacists in Western Australia accredited by the Australian Association of Consultant Pharmacy or Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia. Method A paper questionnaire was developed and sent to 198 accredited pharmacists in Western Australia in June 2017. Simple descriptive statistics summarised demographic information and other responses. Logistic regression evaluated factors associated with the frequency of provision of Home Medicines Reviews. Main outcome measure Frequency and factors influencing services provided. Results Of 102 (51.5%) questionnaires returned, 67 (65.7%) respondents were female. Many were aged between 31 and 40 years (53; 52.0%). Most were accredited by the Australian Association of Consultant Pharmacy (101; 99.0%) and mainly offered Home Medicines Reviews (70; 68.6%). Home Medicines Reviews provided over the previous 12 months were limited in frequency with one quarter providing either 1-10 (27; 26.5%) or 21-50 (28; 27.5%) reviews. The median "average" preparation, interview and report writing times, plus communication with other health professionals aggregated to 175.0 min (interquartile range: 140.0-235.0 min) for Home Medicine Reviews and 110.0 min (90.0-140.0) for Residential Medication Management Reviews. Pharmacists born overseas and those who were accredited for a longer time were associated with performing 51 or more Home Medicines Reviews annually. Only one-third (36/101; 35.6%) agreed the current payment was appropriate. Most agreed their Home Medicines Reviews (92/96; 95.8%) and Residential Medication Management Reviews (26/28; 92.9%) provided improved patient outcomes. Over 97% of accredited pharmacists intended to continue to remain accredited. Conclusions Wide variations were evident in the times taken for tasks associated with performing reviews. Most respondents considered their medication reviews contributed to improved patient outcomes. The wide variation in times taken for the reviews suggests a tiered structure for service provision, with appropriate payment within each tier, since most consider current remuneration inadequate.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelProfessional RoleAdultCommunity Pharmacy ServicesFemaleHome Care ServicesHumansMaleMedication ReconciliationMedication Therapy ManagementMiddle AgedPharmacistsResidential FacilitiesSurveys and QuestionnairesWestern AustraliaYoung AdultAccredited pharmacistsAustraliaHome medicines reviewsMedication reviewResidential medication management reviews

Identifiers

PMID32162188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.