Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41028659›Full record

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.

Chloe Lewis, Dale Weerasooriya, Caroline Cheng, Melanie Dalby

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

4 authors.

Chloe LewisKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. chloe.lewis@nhs.net.
Dale WeerasooriyaKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Caroline ChengKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Melanie DalbyKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PharmacistsPharmacy Service, HospitalHospitals, TeachingHumansLondonRisk AssessmentMedicines riskNew medicinesProcurementPurchasing for SafetyRisk AssessmentUnlicensed medicines

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.