ArticleBMC health services research2026
The economic impact of clinical pharmacists in a tertiary care centre in Germany: pharmacoeconomic benefit calculation using cost-avoidance analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePharmacoeconomic evaluation of clinical pharmacy services (CPS) aims to assess the contribution of clinical pharmacists (CP) to optimize the medication process by interventions while simultaneously saving costs. The objective of this study was to provide a valuable contribution by calculating the pharmacoeconomic benefit per full-time equivalent (FTE) comparing costs of avoided adverse drug events (ADE) with CP wage costs in a German tertiary care centre.
methodsCPs recorded their interventions according to an internal documentation tool, and an expert panel evaluated the likelihood that these interventions would have averted an ADE. The internal cost-avoidance analysis involved determining the total amount of ADE excess costs that could potentially be avoided in 2021. This was achieved by multiplying the median probability of an ADE occurring, as evaluated by an expert panel, by the inflation-adjusted ADE excess costs. These factors, in combination with CP wage costs contributed to the calculation of the pharmacoeconomic benefit. FTEs were used to improve comparability. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted for relevant parameters.
resultsSome 221 out of 3,562 recorded active interventions were analysed. The major interventions made by CPs were medication stops or dosage changes, representing more than 50% of all CPS provided in 2021. To sum up, the findings demonstrated that interventions preventing ADEs are beneficial. A pharmacoeconomic benefit of €13,467 per FTE was calculated. The sensitivity analysis revealed further savings potential, as our model was based on rather conservative assumptions.
conclusionThis study has demonstrated pharmacoeconomic benefits of CP interventions. The necessity of integrating CPs into routine care to improve patient care quality while increasing economic efficiency has been proven. Future studies should investigate the long-term effects of these interventions and their implementation in other healthcare facilities to determine the full potential of CPs.
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.