Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39166140›Full record

ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2024

Flip the Script: Changing Documentation Standards and Establishing Best Practices for Pharmacists in a Primary Care Setting.

Nicole Domanski, Carmen Leung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Nicole DomanskiFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia.
Carmen LeungFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Documentation of clinical encounters continues to be a challenge to implement in practice and there is a lack of literature on documentation best practices in pharmacy. In order to inform documentation practices at an academic pharmacy clinic, a quality assurance (QA) initiative was implemented at the UBC Pharmacists Clinic (the Clinic). The goal of this QA initiative was to determine what facilitators and barriers to documentation existed for Clinic pharmacists and improve the efficiency of consultation note writing. Phase 1 conducted an online survey to assess each pharmacist's documentation practice at baseline. Phase 2 implemented new interventions that could advance these skills. There were five main interventions introduced: 1) revised consultation note templates, 2) a documentation "checklist", 3) a documentation "decision tree", 4) a clinical documentation guide and 5) a documentation peer-feedback workshop. During Phase 3, pharmacists re-answered the same survey questions 10 months later. This allowed for a direct comparison of documentation practices and skills before and after the interventions. After the interventions, pharmacists reduced the time to complete their notes by nearly 14 min. The revised note structure resulted in an increased uptake of template use from 37% to 100%. Furthermore, prior to the interventions, the majority of pharmacists ranked writing consultation notes as the most burdensome aspect of their daily workflow. Afterwards, the perceived level of burden reduced significantly. These findings can be used to inform how students are taught documentation and improve the quality of documentation by pharmacists in team-based or primary care settings.

Indexed as

DocumentationPharmacistPharmacy ClinicPrimary Care

Identifiers

PMID39166140
PMCPMC11333100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.