Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38654957›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

A Scoping Review of Student Pharmacist Participation on Interprofessional Rounds.

Alice N Hemenway, Heidi R Olson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Alice N HemenwayDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois Chicago, Rockford, USA.
Heidi R OlsonDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois Chicago, Rockford, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interprofessional rounding is a common, yet unrequired, part of the pharmacy experiential curriculum. Little is known about the optimal interprofessional rounding structure for student pharmacists. A scoping review was performed to assess the amount and type of information available regarding student pharmacist participation on interprofessional rounding teams. A comprehensive review of five databases was completed through May 12, 2023. A total of 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. All of the assessments performed were quasi-experimental, and the majority were non-comparative studies that described the type and amount of student interventions. A review of outcomes found that all of the studies could be grouped into two overarching categories: those that assessed the benefits of interprofessional rounding to student pharmacist competencies or satisfaction and those that assessed the benefits of student pharmacists to patient care. The benefits of interprofessional rounding on student pharmacist learning and satisfaction were assessed by qualitative analysis, surveys, and student ability assessments. The benefit of student pharmacist participation in interprofessional rounds to patient care was assessed solely by a review of clinical intervention type and quantity. Thirteen of the studies described the frequency of student pharmacist participation in rounding. Of these studies, eight described daily rounding, and five described non-daily rounding. There are few studies that describe student pharmacist participation on interprofessional rounds and assess the benefits of that participation to either the patient or the student. There is a need for more high-quality studies to determine whether there is an optimal interprofessional rounding schedule.

Indexed as

clinical roundingexperiential educationinterprofessional roundingpharmacy educationscoping review

Identifiers

PMID38654957
PMCPMC11036025

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.