Clinical pharmacy services: prognostic criteria for selective patient monitoring, part ii

Young, W. Wayne; Bell, Jeannine; Bouchard, Vincent E.; Duffy, Sister M. Gonzales

doi:10.1093/ajhp/31.7.667

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most comprehensive analysis of prognostic criteria for patients requiring clinical pharmacy services can be found in a series of articles published by Young and colleagues in 1974. 6,7 The authors found that variables such as patient temperature, number of diagnoses, number of abnormal lab values, and type of admission were strong predictors for advanced pharmacist monitoring. Additional research in this area would be quite valuable.…”

Section: Providing Appropriate Clinical Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for Evaluating Clinical Pharmacy Services

Sanborn

2006

Hosp Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These series of articles of the Director's Forum switch their focus from the core competencies of hospital pharmacy practice to programs that enhance the ability of the pharmacy to provide patient-centered services. In the September 2006 issue, decentralized pharmacy services were reviewed and recommended as an effective patient-centered strategy for a hospital pharmacy. In the October 2006 issue, strategies for developing advanced practice clinical programs were discussed. These services place the pharmacist closer to patients, enhancing their ability to be involved directly in all aspects of effective medication therapy management.

show abstract

Section: Providing Appropriate Clinical Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for Evaluating Clinical Pharmacy Services

Sanborn

2006

Hosp Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The alternatives to not using a program such as this are many. In 1974, Young et al 22,23 developed a set of prognostic criteria for selective inpatient monitoring. Another potential screening tool was created in 1992 by Von Korff et al 24 In 1992, Hanlon et al 25 also developed a screening tool capable of identifying patients with the greatest need for pharmacist intervention.…”

Section: Research Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The tool by Young et al 22,23 selects patients on the basis of total number of abnormal laboratory test results, number of drugs in the patient's daily regimen before admission, patient's temperature, patient's initial temperature, type of hospital admission, and total number of different diagnoses at the time of admission. This comprehensive tool may have limited applicability because many of these specific physiologic measures and tests are often not available to the pharmacist at the time of screening.…”

Section: Research Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Risk Factors for Patients with Potential Drug-Related Problems Using Electronic Pharmacy Data

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of drug-related problem risk assessment tools for older adults: a systematic review

Puumalainen

Airaksinen

Jalava

et al. 2019

Eur J Clin Pharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to systematically review studies describing screening tools that assess the risk for drug-related problems (DRPs) in older adults (≥ 60 years). The focus of the review is to compare DRP risks listed in different tools and describe their development methods and validation. Methods The systematic search was conducted using evidence-based medicine, Medline Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from January 1, 1985, to April 7, 2016. Publications describing general DRP risk assessment tools for older adults written in English were included. Disease, therapy, and drug-specific tools were excluded. Outcome measures included an assessment tool's content, development methods, and validation assessment. Results The search produced 15 publications describing 11 DRP risk assessment tools. Three major categories of risks for DRPs included (1) patient or caregiver related risks; (2) pharmacotherapy-related risks; and (3) medication use process-related risks. Of all the risks included in the tools only 8 criteria appeared in at least 4 of the tools, problems remembering to take the medication being the most common (n=7). Validation assessments varied and content validation was the most commonly conducted (n = 9). Reliability assessment was conducted for 6 tools, most commonly by calculating internal consistency (n = 3) and inter-rater reliability (n = 2). Conclusions The considerable variety between the contents of the tools indicates that there is no consensus on the risk factors for DRPs that should be screened in older adults taking multiple medicines. Further research is needed to improve the accuracy and timeliness of the DRP risk assessment tools.

show abstract

Clinical pharmacy services: prognostic criteria for selective patient monitoring, part ii

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Strategies for Evaluating Clinical Pharmacy Services

Strategies for Evaluating Clinical Pharmacy Services

Estimating Risk Factors for Patients with Potential Drug-Related Problems Using Electronic Pharmacy Data

Comparison of drug-related problem risk assessment tools for older adults: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About