Background People are living longer, with more chronic conditions and are prescribed more medications according to disease specific guidelines. The WIDE Review is an innovative model of comprehensive medication review devised to treat the whole patient. Frail patients are twice as likely to be prescribed inappropriate medications and are more vulnerable to their harmful effects. Use of the STOPP/START criteria and the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) have been shown to improve patient outcomes. This study examined the impact and cost effectiveness of pharmacist led WIDE Reviews. Methods This quantitative prospective cohort study was conducted over 8 weeks in a Model 3 hospital. Inclusion criteria: inpatients age > 65 years; prescribed > 6 regular medications and screened positive for frailty (PRISMA 7 score >3). Critically ill patients were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to intervention or control group. The intervention group received a pharmacist led WIDE Review: Wholistic (establishing patients' priorities), Integrated (collaborating with primary care providers), Deprescribing Evaluation of medication harms versus benefits. Medications were screened using the STOPP/START criteria and the MAI was calculated. In conjunction with the patients and their consultants, deprescribing plans were devised and communicated to their GPs and community pharmacists Results A total of 20 intervention and 20 control group patients were enrolled. Patient characteristics (age, sex and length of stay) were similar for both groups. 65% of STOPP and 62% of START criteria were addressed in the intervention group versus 12% and 5% respectively in the control group. In the intervention group 83 medications were stopped, 23 dose reduced and the total MAI score was reduced by 64%. Cost savings to the annual drug budget alone represented a 9:1 return on investment of hospital pharmacist time. Conclusion Pharmacists performing WIDE Reviews significantly improved medication appropriateness and realised compelling cost savings. A larger scale study of this innovative approach to medication review is planned.

screening process time, from 7.8 hours (range 4 to 11.6) in the control to 3.5 hours (range 1.8 to 5.2) in the active period, a statistically significant difference of 4.3 hours (95% CI 0.2 to 8.5, p=0.039). The transcribing error rate during the active period was 4%, lower than the 27% in the control period (c 2 (1)=36.46, p<0.001). Conclusion and relevance Involving OWPs in transcribing supportive medication reduced the IPChx delivery time and the occurrence of transcribing errors. Nonetheless, inconsistencies between current practice and hospital targets raised important issues that may imply that a further evaluation of the whole IPChx process is required. Consequently, further research is required to establish if additional interventions are required to improve waiting times for oncology patients.