ArticleJournal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA
Development of a screening tool to identify patients likely to benefit from clinical pharmacist review in a home-based primary care population.
Article in Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of a Geriatric Evaluation and Management in the Home (GEMITH) Service at a Quaternary Hospital: A Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of pharmacy practice · 2025Observational
- Article
- Identifying Frail Patients by Using Electronic Health Records in Primary Care: Current Status and Future Directions.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Pharmacist medication review: An integrated team approach to serve home-based primary care patients.PloS one · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo create a novel screening tool that identified patients who were most likely to benefit from pharmacist in-home medication reviews.
designSingle-center, retrospective study. SETTING AND
participantsA total of 25 homebound patients in Forsyth County, NC, aged 60 years or older with physical or cognitive impairments and enrolled in home-based primary care or transitional and supportive care programs participated in the study. Pharmacy resident-provider pairs conducted home visits for all patients in the study. Pharmacy residents assessed the subjective risk (high, medium, low) of medication nonadherence using information obtained from home visits (health literacy, support network, medications, and detection of something unexpected related to medications). An electronic medical record-based risk score was simultaneously calculated using screening tool components (i.e., electronic frailty index score, LACE+ index [length of stay in the hospital, acuity of admission, comorbidity, emergency department utilization in the 6 months before admission], and 2015 American Geriatric Society Beers Criteria). OUTCOME MEASURES: The electronic medical record-based screening tool numerical risk scores were compared with pharmacy resident subjective risk assessments using tree-based classification models to determine screening tool components that best predicted pharmacy residents' subjective assessment of patients' likelihood of benefit from in-home pharmacist medication review. Following the study, satisfaction surveys were given to providers and pharmacy residents.
resultsThe best predictor of high-risk patients was an electronic frailty index score greater than 0.32 (indicating very frail) or LACE+ index greater than or equal to 59 (at high risk for hospital readmission). Pharmacy residents and providers agreed that homebound patients at high-risk for medication noncompliance benefited from pharmacist time and attention in home visits.
conclusionIn homebound older persons, this screening tool allowed for the identification of patients at high-risk for medication nonadherence through targeted in-home pharmacist medication reviews. Further studies are needed to validate the accuracy of this tool internally and externally.
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.