ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2024
Practising prioritisation: exploring variation in applying a clinical pharmacy risk stratification tool.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the use of a risk stratification tool and explore the contributing factors to variation in practice by clinical pharmacists.
methodsThe quantitative phase was a prospective evaluation of adherence to the risk stratification tool. Patients were selected by convenience sampling from medical wards across two hospital sites. Researchers applied the risk stratification tool to each patient, documented the code, accessed health records in subsequent days, and recorded the code assigned by the pharmacist. These codes were compared. The kappa (κ) coefficient test was performed using SPSS software as a statistical measure of agreement. The qualitative phase was designed using focus groups with clinical pharmacists. One focus group was conducted at each of the two study sites. Participants were grouped to ensure a mix of experience levels. To augment the discussion, participants completed a short survey. Focus groups were recorded and a thematic analysis undertaken.
resultsThe final cohort for quantitative analysis was 73. Researchers and pharmacists allocated the same code to 19 (26%) patients. The highest match rate was observed between researchers and rotational pharmacists. The κ coefficient was 0.039 (slight agreement) with p value=0.52 (not significant). Ten pharmacists participated in the focus groups: three from site 1 and seven from site 2. All participants reported using the principles of the risk stratification tool every day, but they rarely accessed the tool. Pharmacists reported using the tool as a workload management and communication system.
conclusionsVariation in application of the risk stratification tool exists among pharmacists. Focus group participants described multiple scenarios where non-patient factors were considered in assigning a priority code for the patient. A schedule of regular review of the criteria; training and peer review; tool validation; and research identifying the relationship between structured professional judgement and risk stratification tools is recommended.
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.