ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Evaluation of clinical interventions made by pharmacists, doctors and nurses in a hospital post-discharge telephone service: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinician-led post-discharge telephone follow-up programs are effective in resolving medication-related problems (MRPs) in older adults. Our hospital offers a post-discharge telephone service, Talk-To-You-Tomorrow (TTYT), to general medicine patients to support medication management following hospital discharge. However, little is known about the the types of interventions used to address MRPs between clinicians within post-discharge telephone services.
aimTo compare the types of interventions utalised (pharmacists versus non-pharmacist clinicians) in addressing MRPs for general medicine patients identified through a post-discharge telephone follow-up (TFU) service.
methodA retrospective cohort study investigated interventions provided to general medicine patients between June 2022 to May 2023 who underwent TTYT in a large metropolitan health service. Contemporaneous records were used to identify patients with MRPs and there corresponding interventions. MRPs were categorised using the Drug Evaluation Tools (NESA: necessity, effectiveness, safety and adherence). Interventions were classified using The Swiss Society of Public Health Administration and Hospital Pharmacists tools (patient-level, prescriber-level, drug-level and other interventions). Primary outcome was the difference in interventions (pharmacists versus non-pharmacist clinicians). Secondary outcome was the types of MRPs identified by different clinicians. Outcomes were evaluated using the Pearson's χ
resultsFrom 3,815 TTYT consultation records, 526 patients had MRPs. All MRPs had at least one intervention (227 pharmacist's and 299 non-pharmacist clinicians'). Pharmacists liaised with other clinicians the most (7.9% (18/227) vs 4.7% (14/299)) versus non-pharmacist clinicians who utilised more drug-level interventions (18% (53/299) vs 13.2% (30/227)). There were no statistically significant differences in the intervention types across pharmacists versus non-pharmacists (X
conclusionClinicians mostly provided patient-level interventions however, no difference in the types of MRP's identified in a post-discharge TTYT consult between various clinicians. Importantly, pharmacists were more likely identifying a MRP than other clinicians, which highlights the beneficial role of a pharmacist in medication management and their impact on medication safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42684561What 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.