Observational studyPloS one2021
Time distribution for pharmacists conducting a randomized controlled trial-An observational time and motion study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interdisciplinary collaboration across secondary and primary care to improve medication safety in the elderly (The IMMENSE study) - a randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2022Trial
- A multi-site evaluation of clinical pharmacist time, motion, interventions and interruptions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Engineering Resilient Community Pharmacies for Chronic Care Management: Protocol for the Development of a Medication Safety Map.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Impact of clinical pharmacist involvement on emergency department physicians' work-time distribution: a comparative analysis.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAn expected future increase in older adults will demand changes in health care delivery, making development, implementation and evaluation of new health care models essential. The rationale for political decision-making concerning the implementation and application of interventions in health care should include cost estimations, specifically those involving clinical interventions. To provide such data knowledge of time spent on the intervention is imperative. Time and motion methodology is suitable to quantify health care personnel's time distribution.
aimTo investigate the time distribution for pharmacists conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) implementing a clinical intervention. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe setting was an RCT with a 5-step pharmacist-intervention in collaboration with the interdisciplinary team in a geriatric ward. Two pharmacists were involved in the trial during the observation period. Pharmacist activities, classified as RCT-tasks (intervention or administrative), non-RCT tasks and social/breaks, were recorded applying the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing methodology, enabling recording of predefined work tasks as well as interruptions and multitasking. One observer collected data over eight weeks.
resultsIn total, 109.1 hours were observed resulting in 110.2 hours total task time, including multitasking. RCT tasks comprised 85.4% of the total observed time, and nearly 60% of the RCT time was spent on intervention tasks. Medication reviews was the most time consuming task, accounting for 32% of the observed time. The clinical pharmacists spent 14% of the intervention time communicating verbally, mainly with patients and healthcare professionals.
conclusionDuring the RCT, the clinical pharmacists spent about half their time performing the actual intervention. Consequently, costs for providing such a clinical pharmacist service should reflect actual time spent; otherwise, we may risk overestimating theoretical costs.
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.