Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33262131›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2021

Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK.

Aseel S Abuzour, Gillian Hoad-Reddick, Memona Shahid, Douglas T Steinke, Mary P Tully, Steven David Williams, Penny J Lewis

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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. It is linked to trial NCT07282379 (DETECTION OF ISAR-FLAGGED AT-RISK MEDICATION IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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.

NCT07282379 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Detection of isar-flagged at-risk medication in the emergency department (disarmed)

TypeobservationalSponsorPharmacie des Hopitaux de l'Est LemaniqueRan2026 to 2026Enrolled300ConditionsFrailty, Emergency Department Visit, Elderly, Drug Drug InteractionArmsPharmaceutical analysis based on the Electronic Patient Record
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aseel S AbuzourDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK aseel.abuzour@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4073-4346
Gillian Hoad-ReddickRetired, Patient and Public Involvement member, Manchester, UK.
Memona ShahidDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Douglas T SteinkeDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mary P TullyDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Steven David WilliamsDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9080-5897
Penny J LewisDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3976-5807
University of Manchester · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-1215-20031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo survey and explore current approaches to deployment of pharmaceutical care prioritisation tools in acute hospitals in the UK.

methodsA national online survey was circulated electronically to chief pharmacists of hospitals to determine if they use a prioritisation tool or process. Where such mechanisms exist, respondents were invited to participate in a semistructured telephone interview to explore the development, evaluation and application of their tool and share relevant documentation. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed.

resultsSeventy hospitals (70/130) used a tool or process to prioritise clinical pharmacy services. Thirty-six interviews were conducted, and two were excluded. The majority of tools had been developed in-house. Few hospitals had undertaken formal evaluations of their prioritisation tool. Pharmacy prioritisation tools ranged in complexity and often included a combination of pharmacy service prioritisation, such as medicines reconciliation, and a section to assign an individual patient prioritisation level. Determining the priority of a patient based on the identification of set indicators instilled confidence in pharmacists by ensuring they were not missing high-risk patients. Electronic prioritisation tools were especially useful at retrieving real-time data to prioritise workload, improving workflow and ensuring continuity in patient care. Drawbacks of using prioritisation tools included lack of tool sensitivity across certain specialties and time spent using the tool if not all information was accessible.

conclusionsPrioritisation tools were seen to be useful for prioritising workload and ensuring the right patients are seen at the right time. As few hospitals had formally evaluated their tools, it is important to rigorously and systematically develop an evidence-based prioritisation tool that is both useable and acceptable. Further research to evaluate such tools would be needed to ensure it improves patient health outcomes and efficiency in pharmacy services.

Indexed as

PharmaciesPharmacyPharmacy Service, HospitalHumansPharmacistsUnited Kingdomclinical pharmacyhealth services administration and managementpharmacy management (organisation and financial)pharmacy management (personnel)risk management

Identifiers

PMID33262131
PMCPMC8640403
OpenAlexW3109667063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.