Observational studyInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2023
Clinical pharmacy services in critical care: results of an observational study comparing ward-based with remote pharmacy services.
Observational study 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. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Clinical Pharmacy Services in Ministry of Health Hospitals in Al-Baha Region of Saudi Arabia, a Three-Year Retrospective Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Association between unresolved drug-related problems and 6-month hospital readmissions following pharmacist-led medication reviews: a retrospective observational study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Observational
- Resolution rate of prescribing errors after advice from a specialised hospital pharmacist or a substitute hospital pharmacist: a retrospective cross-sectional study.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2026Article
- The Spectrum of Clinical Pharmacy Services in a Non-University Hospital-A Comprehensive Characterization Including a Risk Assessment for Drug-Related Problems and Adverse Drug Reactions.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A cohort study comparing pharmacist activities during participation in general medical ward rounds: telehealth versus in-person during the COVID-19 pandemic.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Enhancing drug therapy in ostomy patients: Best practice recommendations for medication management.PloS one · 2024Article
- Consultation-Based Deprescribing Service to Optimize Palliative Care for Terminal Cancer Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacists are essential team members in critical care and contribute to the safety of pharmacotherapy for this vulnerable group of patients, but little is known about remote pharmacy services in intensive care units (ICU).
aimWe compared the acceptance of pharmacist interventions (PI) in ICU patients working remotely with ward-based service. We evaluated both pharmacy services, including further information on PI, including reasons, actions and impact.
methodOver 5 months, a prospective single-centre observational study divided into two sequential phases (remote and ward-based) was performed on two ICU wards at a university hospital. After a structured medication review, PI identified were addressed to healthcare professionals. For documentation, the national database (ADKA-DokuPIK) was used. Acceptance was used as the primary endpoint. All data were analysed using descriptive methods.
resultsIn total, 605 PI resulted from 1023 medication reviews. Acceptance was 75% (228/304) for remote and 88% (265/301; p < 0.001) for ward-based services. Non-inferiority was not demonstrated. Most commonly, drug- (44% and 36%) and dose-related (36% and 35%) reasons were documented. Frequently, drugs were stopped/paused (31% and 29%) and dosage changed (31% and 30%). PI were classified as "error, no harm" (National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention [NCC MERP] categories B to D; 83% and 81%). The severity and clinical relevance were at least ranked as "significant" (68% and 66%) and at least as "important" for patients (77% and 83%).
conclusionThe way pharmacy services are provided influences the acceptance of PI. Remote pharmacy services may be seen as an addition, but acceptance rates in remote services failed to show non-inferiority.
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.