ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
ESCP Best Practice: Development, implementation and evaluation of a practical risk assessment process for the introduction of new medicines to clinical practice at an Acute Hospital.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A multi-method study of unlicensed medicine risk assessment: a cross-sectional survey of pharmacy procurement leads and policy analysis across NHS trusts in England.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
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
introductionIncorporating new medications into clinical practice can present potential risks to staff and patients. Risk assessment of new medicines procured into acute hospitals in the United Kingdom varies between organisations and national guidance is lacking. Existing processes required risk assessment of all new medicines, consuming considerable pharmacist resource.
aimTo rationalise the risk assessment of new medicines at an acute hospital.
settingA 1300 bed, multi-site tertiary-referral teaching hospital, London, United Kingdom. DEVELOPMENT: A pharmacy working group, including formulary, governance, medication safety, and clinical leads, developed a rationalised risk assessment process. An initial triage was proposed to evaluate whether a risk assessment was required. Existing risk assessment tools were combined and adapted for use. A New Drug Panel (NDP) of pharmacy leaders was formed to review risk assessments. IMPLEMENTATION: The process was piloted for 6 months; minor modifications were made and it was fully introduced in May 2022. Implementation included governance sign off and training of members of the NDP on utilisation of the tools. EVALUATION: Two years after introduction, 646 requests for new medicines were triaged and 196 (30%) required risk assessment. Fourteen requests were cancelled, so 182 risk assessments were reviewed by the NDP. The NDP recommended an additional 46 mitigations. Trends identified issues with unlicensed medicines, safe administration practices, communication and electronic prescribing.
conclusionA practical risk assessment process reduced risk assessments by 70%, releasing clinical pharmacist time. An expert NDP identified additional mitigations, reducing patient harm and ensuring safe incorporation of medicines into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41028659What 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.