Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34345512›Full record

ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2021

Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Pharmacist Involvement in Medical Rounds.

Stephanie M Tubb, Erin B Loesch

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephanie M TubbDayton VA Medical Center, Dayton OH; Pharmacy Practice, Cedarville University School of Pharmacy.
Erin B LoeschDayton VA Medical Center, Dayton, OH.
Dayton VA Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent physicians note the positive effects of clinical pharmacists on rounds, yet minimal evidence exists regarding medical residents' view of pharmacists in this setting. Knowing their perceptions of clinical pharmacists on acute care rounds will allow pharmacists to optimize their roles and improve their interprofessional interactions.

objectiveTo assess internal medicine residents' perceptions of pharmacists on rounds, evaluate which recommendations they prefer to receive, and examine their past experiences with pharmacists on rounds.

methodsInternal medicine residents were invited to complete an online survey containing 7 items regarding past experiences with pharmacists on rounds (5-point Likert-type scale; 1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree), 3 items about preferred recommendations (ranking questions), and 6 items regarding perceptions of pharmacy practice (5-point Likert-type scale; 1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree). Data were analyzed using frequencies.

results27 residents participated (33.75% response rate). A majority strongly agreed that they always want a pharmacist to be a part of their rounding team (Mean ± SD = 4.93 ± 0.26). They prefer receiving recommendations from the pharmacist in-person before, during, or after rounds and appreciate recommendations on topics such as anticoagulants, antimicrobial stewardship, and renal dose adjustments. Residents did not express a strong knowledge of pharmacists' education and training processes (Mean ± SD = 3.77 ± 1.05), which may have led to their lack of agreement that pharmacists are equipped to be mid-level practitioners (Mean ± SD = 3.00 ± 1.30).

conclusionsInternal medicine residents had positive experiences with rounding pharmacists and desire their involvement on rounds. Pharmacists should make recommendations to residents in-person and educate them on their education and training to allow for further advocacy for pharmacist services.

Indexed as

clinical pharmacistmedical residentsperceptionsrounds

Identifiers

PMID34345512
PMCPMC8326697
OpenAlexW3084289494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.