ArticleBMC health services research2020
Medication reviews in hospitalized patients: a qualitative study on perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safe Handover or Lost in Transition?-A Retrospective Evaluation of Pharmacist Referrals to Primary Care Following Hospital Discharge.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An Underused Competence: Clinical Pharmacists' Experiences of Writing Referrals in Transitions of Care.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring consumer and healthcare professional perspectives on discharge medicine communication and solutions for safer transitions of care.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Adverse drug reactions in older people following hospitalisation: a qualitative exploration of general practitioners' perspectives.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Exploring the general practitioners' perception of the inter-professional care of rheumatoid arthritis patients (GEPRA-II): a qualitative interview study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Barriers, facilitators and needs to deprescribe benzodiazepines and other sedatives in older adults: a mixed methods study of primary care provider perspectives.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Does power distance in healthcare teams linked to patient satisfaction? A multilevel study of interprofessional care teams in a referral hospital in Indonesia.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Multidisciplinary perspectives on roles of hospital pharmacists in tertiary settings: a qualitative study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024Article
- Article
- Multidisciplinary telephone conferences about medication therapy after discharge of older inpatients: a feasibility study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Review
- Professionals' responses to the introduction of AI innovations in radiology and their implications for future adoption: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn-hospital medication reviews are regularly performed. However, discontinuity in care could occur because secondary care providers lack insight into the outpatient history. Furthermore, for the implementation or follow-up of some medication review-based interventions, the help of primary care providers is essential. This requires interprofessional collaboration between secondary and primary care. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration on medication reviews in hospitalised patients.
methodsTen face-to-face semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 20 healthcare providers from three hospitals and community health services. The interviews were aimed at exploring general practitioners', community pharmacists', geriatricians', and hospital pharmacists' experiences, attitudes, and views of interprofessional collaboration. Focus groups consisted of representatives of all professional groups. Through group discussion, interprofessional collaboration was explored by addressing three main questions: 1) What are the benefits of in-hospital medication reviews? 2) What are the barriers to in-hospital medication reviews from an interprofessional collaboration perspective? 3) Given the barriers mentioned, how should this interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care be designed? Data were analysed using a thematic-content approach.
resultsThe need for in-hospital medication reviews was underlined due to their many benefits, such as reducing potentially preventable re-admissions. Barriers regarding interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care can be subdivided into three main themes: 1) defining in-hospital medication reviews (e.g., lack of clear goals), 2) execution of medication reviews (e.g., hospital setting is dynamic), and 3) follow-up after discharge (e.g., unclear instructions). Care providers suggested solutions for each of the barriers mentioned, for example, by using supportive staff in order to overcome the gap between primary and secondary care providers and making clear agreements on proper means of communication.
conclusionPrimary and secondary care providers recognise the importance of in-hospital medication reviews and the need for interprofessional collaboration. To create satisfying interprofessional collaboration, conditions should be met on defining in-hospital medication reviews across settings and involving both primary and secondary care providers in implementing medication reviews and organising their follow-up.
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.