ArticlePrimary health care research & development2020
Implementation of a standardised annual anticoagulation specialist review in primary care.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bleeding in Antiplatelet Therapy: A Narrative Review of Clinical Evidence and the Roles of Pharmacists and Nurses.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increasing number of patients are being prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), while the patients who remain on warfarin are becoming more complex. There is currently a lack of a standardised anticoagulation review for patients in primary care, resulting in potentially preventable harm events. Our aim was to implement a new service, where a standardised review is carried out by a specialist multidisciplinary secondary care anticoagulation team. Overall, the implementation of a standardised review resulted in better optimisation of anticoagulation management for patients taking either a DOAC or a warfarin. Of the 172 eligible patients prescribed warfarin, 47 (27%) chose to switch a DOAC. The average time in therapeutic range for patients on warfarin before and after the pilot increased from 73.5% to 75%. Of 482 patients taking a DOAC, 35 (7%) were found to be on incorrect dose. In 32 (91%) of 35 patients, the dose was amended after notifying the patient's general practitioner. We also found a significant number of patients inappropriately prescribed concomitant medication such as antiplatelet or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, potentially putting the patients at an elevated risk of bleeding. While further research is needed; we believe the results of this pilot can be used to help build a case to influence the commissioning of anticoagulation services. Secondary care anticoagulation teams, like our own, may be well-placed to provide or support such services, by working across the primary care and secondary care interface to support our primary care colleagues.
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.