Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36469215›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2023

Prioritizing patients for medication review by emergency department pharmacists: a multi-method study.

Anna Birna Almarsdóttir, Romana Haq, Josefine Dalgaard Scheel Vandel Nørgaard

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna Birna AlmarsdóttirDepartment of Pharmacy, Social and Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. aba@sund.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5354-2976
Romana HaqDepartment of Pharmacy, Social and Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Josefine Dalgaard Scheel Vandel NørgaardCapital Region Hospital Pharmacy, Region Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PharmacistsPhysiciansEmergency Service, HospitalHumansMedication ReviewProfessional RoleClinical pharmacistsMedication reviewsPharmaceutical carePrioritization toolsQualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID36469215
PMCPMC9735217
OpenAlexW4311280842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.