ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Developing the Inpatient Mental Health Pharmaceutical Assessment and Care Tool (IMPACT) for use by UK mental health pharmacy teams-a modified Delphi study.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Developing the Inpatient Mental Health Pharmaceutical Assessment and Care Tool (IMPACT) for use by UK mental health pharmacy teams-a modified Delphi study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 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
Abstract
aimsTo develop an evidence- and consensus-based patient prioritization tool for use by UK mental health inpatient pharmacy teams.
methodsA modified-Delphi technique was used to obtain experts' agreement on the content, design and practical use of the patient prioritization tool. Two sequential Delphi questionnaires were prepared based on published evidence concerning risk factors for drug-related problems in mental health hospitals and current prioritization practices used by UK mental health inpatient pharmacy teams. Questionnaires were discussed and agreed upon with a group of 5 stakeholders including 3 mental health pharmacy experts and 2 patient representatives. Pharmacy professionals, psychiatrists and academics were recruited through a previous study and professional networks. Agreement was achieved if ≥75 or ≥85% of the panel rated 6-7 or 5-7 in the Likert scale respectively.
resultsIn Delphi 1 questionnaire, 29 experts agreed to include 82 risk indicators in the tool and to categorize patients into 3 risk groups using a traffic light system (red = high-risk, amber = medium-risk, green = low-risk). In Delphi 2 questionnaire, 30 experts agreed on 13 statements guiding practical use of the tool and the preferred frequency of review was every 1-2 day for the high-risk group, every 2-4 days for the medium-risk group and once every working week for the low-risk group.
conclusionThis study developed the Inpatient Mental Health Pharmaceutical Assessment and Care Tool (IMPACT) for use by UK mental health pharmacy teams. Feasibility and acceptability testing should be carried out to refine the tool and support preparations for formal evaluation of its impact on patient care and service delivery.
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.