Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40330112›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2025

Evaluation of a score for identifying hospital stays that trigger a pharmacist intervention: integration into a clinical decision support system.

Laurine Robert, Nathalie Vidoni, Erwin Gérard, Emmanuel Chazard, Pascal Odou, Chloé Rousselière, Bertrand Décaudin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2025. 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

7 authors.

Laurine RobertCHU Lille, Institut de Pharmacie, Lille F-59000, France.
Nathalie VidoniPharmacy Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Erwin GérardUniversité de Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694-METRICS: Évaluation des Technologies de Santé et des Pratiques Médicales, Lille F-59000, France.
Emmanuel ChazardUniversité de Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694-METRICS: Évaluation des Technologies de Santé et des Pratiques Médicales, Lille F-59000, France.
Pascal OdouUniversité de Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 7365-GRITA: Groupe de Recherche sur les Formes Injectables et les Technologies Associées, Lille F-59000, France.
Chloé RousselièreCHU Lille, Institut de Pharmacie, Lille F-59000, France.
Bertrand DécaudinUniversité de Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 7365-GRITA: Groupe de Recherche sur les Formes Injectables et les Technologies Associées, Lille F-59000, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of the study was to determine, after medication review, the patient risk score threshold that would distinguish between stays with prescriptions triggering pharmacist intervention (PI) and stays with prescriptions not triggering PI. Materials and Methods: The study was retrospective and observational, conducted in the clinical pharmacy team. The patient risk score was adapted from a Canadian score and was integrated in the clinical decision support system (CDSS). For each hospital stay, the score was calculated at the beginning of hospitalization and we retrospectively showed if a medication review and a PI were conducted. Then, the optimal patient risk score threshold was determined to help pharmacist in optimizing medication review. Results: During the study, 973 (56.7%) medication reviews were performed and 248 (25.5%) led to a PI. After analyzing sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of different thresholds, the threshold of 4 was deemed discriminating to identify hospital stays likely to lead to a PI following a medication review. At this threshold, 600 hospital stays would have been detected (33.3% of the latter led to a PI), and 5.0% of stays with a medication review would not have been detected even though they were hospital stays that had triggered a PI. Discussion and Conclusion: Integration of a patient risk score in a CDSS can help clinical pharmacist to target hospital stays likely to trigger a PI. However, an optimal threshold is difficult to determine. Constructing and using a score in practice should be organized with the local clinical pharmacy team, in order to understand the tool's limitations and maximize its use in detecting at-risk drug prescriptions.

Indexed as

clinical decision support systemclinical pharmacistpharmacist interventionscoring

Identifiers

PMID40330112
PMCPMC12051848

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.