ArticleBMC health services research2026
Implementation of a pharmacist‑led discharge intervention to improve medication information handover at hospital discharge: a non-randomised feasibility study.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTransitions of care have been identified as high-risk periods for medication-related harm. This feasibility study assessed the reach, adoption, implementation, maintenance and acceptability of a multifaceted intervention designed to improve medicine information handover (patient medicine lists and discharge medicine reconciliation) at hospital discharge in a large public health service in southeast Queensland, Australia.
methodsA non-randomised mixed methods study was conducted, guided by RE-AIM framework. Our primary aim was to determine whether the intervention and study procedures were practical, acceptable, and deliverable in the real-world setting. The population were patients ≥ 65 years of age admitted to hospital for > 24 h on one of three medical wards. The intervention included digital risk stratification, documentation of reasons for medication changes within an electronic medical record, web and paper-based patient information resources, and pharmacist engagement with discharge medications. Quantitative data was used to present recruitment and consent rates, and patient responses to post-discharge survey questions, whilst brief and semi-structured interviews explored clinician participants' perspectives. Inductive content analysis was used on all interview transcripts with deductive mapping to the RE-AIM framework.
resultsOf 36 patients approached, 17 (47%) provided consent and 12 (33%) completed surveys. All invited doctors (n = 20) and pharmacists (n = 3) participated in the intervention. Of the 12 patients surveyed, 11 (92%) felt included in medication-related decisions; nine (75%) followed up with their general practitioner post-discharge, and five (56%) did so within one week. Nine doctors and three pharmacists were interviewed. Clinicians viewed the intervention positively, citing improved workflow, reduced workload and enhanced learning opportunities. Barriers included variable uptake across medical teams, and a need for improved communication and training. Participant feedback suggested the intervention would be sustainable long term once overcoming initial challenges.
conclusionThe pharmacist-led, multifaceted intervention was feasible and well received by patients, doctors and pharmacists. It improved communication, workflow and shared learning, supporting pharmacist-led medication reconciliation as a scalable model for improving medicine handover. Larger, multi-site evaluations with extended follow-up are warranted to confirm generalisability and effectiveness.
trial registrationThis was a feasibility study that did not meet the definition of a clinical trial under the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and was not registered as such.
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.