Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33048923›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2020

Evaluation of a pharmacist-led actionable audit and feedback intervention for improving medication safety in UK primary care: An interrupted time series analysis.

Niels Peek, Wouter T Gude, Richard N Keers, Richard Williams, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Mark Jeffries, Denham L Phipps, Benjamin Brown, Anthony J Avery, Darren M Ashcroft

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Ambulatory Medication Safety in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Niels PeekNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6393-9969
Wouter T GudeDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7941-5281
Richard N KeersNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7854-8154
Richard WilliamsNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0920-1103
Evangelos KontopantelisNIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6450-5815
Mark JeffriesNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6882-0350
Denham L PhippsNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0857-2890
Benjamin BrownNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9975-4782
Anthony J AveryNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7591-4438
Darren M AshcroftNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2958-915X
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLGreater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe evaluated the impact of the pharmacist-led Safety Medication dASHboard (SMASH) intervention on medication safety in primary care. METHODS AND

findingsSMASH comprised (1) training of clinical pharmacists to deliver the intervention; (2) a web-based dashboard providing actionable, patient-level feedback; and (3) pharmacists reviewing individual at-risk patients, and initiating remedial actions or advising general practitioners on doing so. It was implemented in 43 general practices covering a population of 235,595 people in Salford (Greater Manchester), UK. All practices started receiving the intervention between 18 April 2016 and 26 September 2017. We used an interrupted time series analysis of rates (prevalence) of potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring, comparing observed rates post-intervention to extrapolations from a 24-month pre-intervention trend. The number of people registered to participating practices and having 1 or more risk factors for being exposed to hazardous prescribing or inadequate blood-test monitoring at the start of the intervention was 47,413 (males: 23,073 [48.7%]; mean age: 60 years [standard deviation: 21]). At baseline, 95% of practices had rates of potentially hazardous prescribing (composite of 10 indicators) between 0.88% and 6.19%. The prevalence of potentially hazardous prescribing reduced by 27.9% (95% CI 20.3% to 36.8%, p < 0.001) at 24 weeks and by 40.7% (95% CI 29.1% to 54.2%, p < 0.001) at 12 months after introduction of SMASH. The rate of inadequate blood-test monitoring (composite of 2 indicators) reduced by 22.0% (95% CI 0.2% to 50.7%, p = 0.046) at 24 weeks; the change at 12 months (23.5%) was no longer significant (95% CI -4.5% to 61.6%, p = 0.127). After 12 months, 95% of practices had rates of potentially hazardous prescribing between 0.74% and 3.02%. Study limitations include the fact that practices were not randomised, and therefore unmeasured confounding may have influenced our findings.

conclusionsThe SMASH intervention was associated with reduced rates of potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring in general practices. This reduction was sustained over 12 months after the start of the intervention for prescribing but not for monitoring of medication. There was a marked reduction in the variation in rates of hazardous prescribing between practices.

Indexed as

AdultCommunity Pharmacy ServicesDrug PrescriptionsElectronic Health RecordsFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisMaleMedication ErrorsMiddle AgedPharmacistsPrimary Health CareRisk FactorsSafetyUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID33048923
PMCPMC7553336
OpenAlexW3092393074

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.