ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2025
Description of Pharmacist Interventions Based on Pharmaceutical Care and a Vulnerability Scoring Tool in a Tertiary Care Centre.
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 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.
- Indicators of Quality Care-What We Do Matters.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Following a restructuring of its pharmacy practices and activities, the pharmacy department of the Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec developed a patient prioritization tool to optimize its delivery of pharmaceutical care. This tool assigns a vulnerability score to patients according to their medications and certain vulnerability factors established in the literature. The tool identifies vulnerable patients who need pharmaceutical care on a mandatory basis (within 1 day) or a priority basis (between 1 and 3 days). Objective: To describe pharmacist interventions carried out for patients admitted to the study institution, in terms of pharmaceutical care provided in relation to scoring with the prioritization tool. Methods: This prospective study involved patients admitted to the study institution for at least 48 hours between May 10 and May 19, 2023. The prioritization tool was applied for all included patients, who were followed prospectively throughout their stay. The pharmacists recorded their interventions on a data collection form. Data were analyzed using frequency analysis, and relationships between variables were expressed using the Pearson correlation coefficients and percentages. Results: Of the 393 patients seen during the study period, 304 were included in the study. Of these, 186 had a priority designation and 64 had a mandatory designation, according to the prioritization tool. The pharmacists performed a total of 1023 interventions, with 194 of the 304 included patients receiving at least 1 pharmacist intervention. The number of interventions for each patient increased with the person's vulnerability score. The most frequent activities were chart review ( Conclusion: In this study, the number of interventions per patient increased with the person's vulnerability score. Although pharmacists responded faster than the recommended time for patients deemed to need care on a priority basis, the response time for patients needing care on a mandatory basis could be improved.
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.