Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32216791›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Emergency department-based medication review on outpatient health services utilization: interrupted time series.

Sophie A Kitchen, Kimberlyn McGrail, Maeve E Wickham, Michael R Law, Corinne M Hohl

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Enhancing healthcare access for an older population: The age-friendly emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sophie A KitchenSchool of Population and Public Health, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z9, Canada.
Kimberlyn McGrailCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, 201-2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Maeve E WickhamSchool of Population and Public Health, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z9, Canada.
Michael R LawCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, 201-2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Corinne M HohlCentre for Clinical Epidemiology & Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, 900 West 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. chohl@mail.ubc.ca.
Institute of Population and Public Health · CAVancouver Coastal Health Research Institute · CA

Funding

BC Ministry of Health (CA) N/AVancouver Coastal Health Research Institute (CA) N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne in nine emergency department (ED) visits in Canada are caused by adverse drug events, the unintended and harmful effects of medication use. Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists are interventions designed to optimize medications and address adverse drug events to impact patient outcomes. However, the effect of medication reviews on long-term outpatient health services utilization is not well understood. This research studied the effect of medication review performed by clinical pharmacists on long-term outpatient health services utilization.

methodsData included information from 10,783 patients who were part of a prospective, multi-centre quality improvement evaluation from 2011 to 2013. Outpatient health services utilization was defined as total ED visits and physician contacts, aggregated to four physician specialty groups: general and family practitioners (GP); medical specialists; surgical specialists; and imaging and laboratory specialists. During triage, patients deemed high-risk based on their medical history, were systematically allocated to receive either a medication review (n = 6403) or the standard of care (n = 4380). Medication review involved a critical examination of a patient's medications to identify and resolve medication-related problems and communicate these results to community care providers. Interrupted time series analysis compared the effect of the intervention on health services utilization relative to the standard of care controlling for pre-intervention differences in utilization.

resultsED-based pharmacist-led medication review did not result in a significant level or trend change in the primary outcome of total outpatient health services utilization. There were also no differences in the secondary outcomes of primary care physician visits or ED visits relative to the standard of care in the 12 months following the intervention. Our findings were consistent when stratified by age, hospital site, and whether patients were discharged on their index visit.

conclusionThis was the first study to measure long-term trends of physician visits following an ED-based medication review. The lack of differences in level and trend of GP and ED visits suggest that pharmacist recommendations may not have been adequately communicated to community-based providers, and/or recommendations may not have affected health care delivery. Future studies should evaluate physician acceptance of pharmacist recommendations and should encourage patient follow-up to community providers.

Indexed as

Drug Utilization ReviewEmergency Service, HospitalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory CareCanadaFemaleHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareProspective StudiesYoung AdultAdverse drug eventsHealth servicesMedication reviewPharmacy

Identifiers

PMID32216791
PMCPMC7098150
OpenAlexW3013294735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.