ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2023
Prioritizing patients for medication review by emergency department pharmacists: a multi-method study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2023. 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 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.
Detection of isar-flagged at-risk medication in the emergency department (disarmed)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tele-triaging: a qualitative study exploring pharmacists' clinical decision-making in a Poisons Information Centre using interviews and a clinical vignette.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Attitudes and confidence toward deprescribing: a survey among Italian general practitioners.BMC primary care · 2025Observational
- A machine learning model exploring the relationship between chronic medication and COVID-19 clinical outcomes.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Nexus of Quality Use of Medicines, Pharmacists' Activities, and the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about how pharmacists think and act in the situation when they need to prioritize patients without prioritization tools.
aimTo understand how Emergency Department (ED) pharmacists prioritize patients for medication review.
methodA multi-method study with pharmacists working in one ED in Denmark. At the start of the study, non-clinical prioritization rules had been implemented at the ED to ensure that medication histories were available quickly. Qualitative participant observations of all seven pharmacists who work at the ED were carried out. Semi-structured interviews with six of the pharmacists were held near in time to the observations. Observations for each pharmacists' patients were analysed inductively looking for patterns and themes. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively.
resultsThe interviews shed light on the kinds of considerations pharmacists processed when prioritizing patients and how they used the ground rules (as set out in the PDSA process). The observations supplemented these data by showing some notable differences between pharmacists' prioritization procedures that linked to their clinical experience. The interviews highlighted the importance of collaboration with physicians and how pharmacists could be better integrated in the ward team.
conclusionAlthough the ward-established rules increased efficiency, they were handled differently by the pharmacists according to experience, and were not deemed helpful in detecting the clinically meaningful ED patients. A prioritization tool and sitting near to the physicians at the ward would enable pharmacists to become further integrated into patient care and improve prioritization of patients for medication reviews.
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.