Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37029858›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2023

Clinical pharmacy services in critical care: results of an observational study comparing ward-based with remote pharmacy services.

Heike Hilgarth, Dominic Wichmann, Michael Baehr, Stefan Kluge, Claudia Langebrake

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Heike HilgarthHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. heikehilgarth@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4126-4251
Dominic WichmannDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Michael BaehrHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Stefan KlugeDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Claudia LangebrakeHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Pharmacy Service, HospitalCritical CareHospitals, UniversityHumansPharmacistsProspective StudiesClinical pharmacistsCritical care unitsHospitalsPharmacist interventionTelepharmacy

Identifiers

PMID37029858
PMCPMC10366025

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.