ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2021
Assessing the quality of drug information provided by hospital pharmacies using a fictitious enquiry and simulated real-life conditions.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2021. 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.
- Factors Determining Quality of Drug Information by Hospital Pharmacies-Results from Five-Year Annual Quality Assessment.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesGuidelines for drug information (DI) provided by hospital pharmacists call for quality assurance procedures; however, no method of evaluation is internationally agreed on. The procedure should be feasible, reproducible and representative for real-life quality. We tested a new approach using a fictitious enquiry under simulated real-life conditions for quality assessment of DI by German hospital pharmacists.
methodsA fictitious enquiry was submitted under simulated real-life conditions (study part I; test week announced, but not exact day; response time given). An expert panel determined content-related (three essential, and up to seven additional items of useful information) and structural requirements for answers and performed blinded evaluations. To compare quality of routine DI answers (study part II), five recently answered routine enquiries could retrospectively be evaluated for plausibility (binary scale 0/1) and structural requirements.
resultsOf 62 hospital pharmacies opting to participate, 45 (71%) entered study part I and 18 (40%) entered study part II. In study part I, 28 participants (62%) presented three essential contents, 11 (24%) two, five (11%) one, and one none. Additional useful information was given in 44-80%. Structural requirements achieved mixed results with low scores for logical conclusion deduction and reference presentation. In study part II, plausibility for the 90 recently answered routine enquiries was rated good (median 0.91, range 0.53-1). Concerning structural requirements, overall comparable results were achieved with minor variations compared with study part I. Thus, the quality of DI was judged to be comparable between study parts I and II.
conclusionsAn open quality assessment procedure with a fictitious enquiry under simulated real-life conditions can successfully be used for quality measurement of DI of hospital pharmacists and identifies areas for improvement.
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.