ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2023
Enhancing the clinical pharmacy service of a large teaching hospital: Development of a new clinical prioritisation tool.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring hospital pharmacist perspectives on ethical considerations from automated patient prioritisation: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Managing emergency department patients with potential medication-related harm: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Article
- The impact of collaborative pharmaceutical care on hospital discharge medication error prevalence: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
- 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
- Allocation and prioritization of hospital pharmacist clinical services in British Columbia.Innovations in pharmacy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The number and complexity of patients being admitted to hospitals is rising and some patients may not receive a full clinical pharmacy review or be reviewed as regularly as needed during their inpatient stay. This is a risk factor for medication errors. Clinical prioritisation identifies patients who are high-risk and most in need of a pharmacist review, targeting finite pharmacy resources to patients who will benefit the most. Objectives: Assess and enhance clinical prioritisation within a hospital pharmacy department. Methods: The study was conducted in a large urban academic teaching hospital. A cross-sectional survey of clinical pharmacists in the hospital was conducted to establish the patient clinical criteria they prioritise in their work. A clinical prioritisation tool was developed based on survey findings and was integrated into an existing electronic pharmacy care interface. A pre- and post-intervention study was conducted, consisting of data collection for five days pre- and five days post-implementation of the tool. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data were analysed by thematic analysis. Results: Of 39 eligible pharmacists, 37 (95%) responded to the survey. The top-rated prioritisation criteria, including medicines reconciliation tasks and high-risk medicines, helped to inform the content of the clinical prioritisation tool. Post-intervention, there were more Level 1 complex patients reviewed by pharmacists and fewer Level 3 stable patients compared to pre-intervention. Tool sensitivity ranged from 51 to 88%, depending on the experience of the pharmacist using the tool. High levels of satisfaction with clinical prioritisation were reported by those using the tool. Conclusion: This newly developed clinical prioritisation tool has the potential to support pharmacists in identifying and reviewing patients in a more targeted manner than practice prior to tool development. Continued development and validation of the tool is essential, with a focus on developing a fully automated tool.
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.