Trial reportInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2021
A randomised trial of pharmacist-led discharge prescribing in an Australian geriatric evaluation and management service.
Trial report in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transitional Care Interventions From Hospital to Community to Reduce Health Care Use and Improve Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluating medication discrepancies and harm: a matched cohort study of collaborative pharmacist prescribing in a statewide healthcare system using electronic prescribing.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- The incidence of medication errors on discharge prescriptions following pharmacist discharge prescription planning (PDPP) in an orthopaedic surgery unit: a parallel group-controlled study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Partnered pharmacist medication charting and prescribing in Australian hospitals.Australian prescriber · 2024Review
- Article
- The Future of Hospital Pharmacy Practice: Pathways to Independent Clinical Pharmacy Practice.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Prescribing discharge medications is a potential "next step" for pharmacists in Australian hospitals, however, safety must be demonstrated via a randomised controlled study. Objective To determine if a collaborative, pharmacist led discharge prescribing model results in less patients with medication errors than conventional prescribing for both handwritten and digital prescriptions. Setting Geriatric Medical ward in a quaternary hospital, Australia Methods A prospective, single-blinded randomised controlled study of patients randomised to conventional (control) or a pharmacist-led prescribing (intervention) arms at discharge from hospital. This study had 2 phases; (1) handwritten prescribing and (2) digital prescribing. In addition, the two prescribing methods were compared. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with a medication error on their discharge prescription. Results In phase 1, 45 patients were recruited; 21 (control) and 24 (intervention). 95% of control patients and 29% in the intervention arm had at least one medication error, p < 0.0002, relative risk (RR) 0.31, confidence interval (CI) 0.16-0.58. The number of items with at least 1 error reduced from 69 to 4%; p < 0.0001, RR 0.06, CI 0.03-0.11 and fewer items had at least 1 clinically significant error (11% vs 2%, p = 0.0004, RR 0.15, CI 0.04-0.30). In phase 2, 39 patients were recruited; 18 (control) and 21 (intervention). 100% of control patients and 62% in the intervention arm had at least one medication error (p = 0.005, RR 0.62, CI 0.44-0.87). Items with at least 1 error decreased from 21 to 7% (p < 0.0001, RR 0.34, CI 0.44-0.56), there were fewer items with at least 1 clinically significant error (13% vs 5%, p < 0.003, RR 0.4, CI 0.22-0.72). There was no significant change in the primary outcome between handwritten and digital (60% vs 79%, p < 0.055). Conclusion In a geriatric setting, pharmacist-led partnered discharge prescribing results in significantly less patients with medication errors than the conventional method for both handwritten and digital methods.
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.