Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35320485›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2022

The standards of practice for delivery of polypharmacy and chronic disease medication reviews by general practice clinical pharmacists: a consensus study.

Katie Earle-Payne, Paul Forsyth, Chris F Johnson, Heather Harrison, Susan Robertson, Anita E Weidmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Interdisciplinary medication reviews of psychiatric patients - A mixed method evaluation.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

6 authors.

Katie Earle-PayneNHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Renfrew Health and Social Care Centre, 10 Ferry Road, Renfrew, PA4 8RU, United Kingdom. Katie.Earle-Payne@ggc.scot.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1335-9306
Paul ForsythNHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Clarkston Court, 56 Busby Road, Glasgow, G76 7AT, United Kingdom.
Chris F JohnsonNHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Clarkston Court, 56 Busby Road, Glasgow, G76 7AT, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6006-6605
Heather HarrisonNHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Clarkston Court, 56 Busby Road, Glasgow, G76 7AT, United Kingdom.
Susan RobertsonNHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Renfrew Health and Social Care Centre, 10 Ferry Road, Renfrew, PA4 8RU, United Kingdom.
Anita E WeidmannFaculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University Innsbruck, Innrain 80-82, Innrain 52c., 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3670-2357

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background General practice in the UK is experiencing a crisis. Greater multidisciplinary working is a potential solution. The new general practice contract in Scotland encourages this and includes a new pharmacotherapy service to be delivered by General Practice Clinical Pharmacists (GPCPs). Consensus is lacking for the standards of practice for delivery of pharmacotherapy medication reviews (which are polypharmacy and chronic medication reviews) as part of this service. Aim To identify and validate standards of practice for polypharmacy and chronic disease medication (pharmacotherapy level 3) reviews conducted by GPCPs. Method A two-phased mixed-methods consensus methodology was used. Phase 1: An expert group of GPCPs (n = 4) and clinical pharmacist managers (n = 2) responsible for delivering the pharmacotherapy service used a Modified Nominal Group Technique to generate potential standards. Phase 2: Two-round Delphi survey involving GPCPs with ≥ 1 year of experience of working in general practice (n = 159). Results The expert group identified 44 potential standards of practice for polypharmacy and chronic disease reviews. Practicing GPCPs indicated during the Delphi phase that the 44 standards were applicable to practice. The standards of practice covered seven main categories: skills, environment, qualifications, qualities and behaviours, knowledge, process and experience. Conclusion Practicing GPCPs indicated that the standards identified by the expert group are acceptable and valid for current practice and the delivery of polypharmacy and chronic medication reviews. The application of these standards to practice may help GPCPs and general practices to ensure equitable delivery of patient care.

Indexed as

General PracticePharmacistsChronic DiseaseHumansMedication ReviewPharmaceutical PreparationsPolypharmacyPharmaceutical PreparationsChronic disease medication reviewsPharmacy practicePolypharmacy reviewsPrimary careStandards of practice

Identifiers

PMID35320485
PMCPMC8941365

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.