Impact of a comprehensive pharmacist medication-therapy management service

Shaya, Fadia T.; Chirikov, Viktor; Rochester, Charmaine D.; Zaghab, Roxanne Ward; Kucharski, K.

doi:10.3111/13696998.2015.1052463

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 2611 citations reviewed, 56 studies 38,39,44-97 were included in the systematic review, and 32 of those studies were analyzed in the meta-analysis. 38,44…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The predicted direction of bias resulting from selection of participants into the study category was also commonly scored as high risk of bias (n = 9), 46,50,51,58,59,69,74,76,77 indicating that the study groups were nonequivalent at baseline and, typically, no multivariate regression was used to control for differences. More than three-quarters of the studies did not report intervention fidelity (n = 28), [44][45][46]48,50,51,[54][55][56][58][59][60][61]63,[65][66][67][68][69][70]73,74,76,78,83,88,89,93 making it difficult to determine how comprehensively the interventions were implemented.…”

Section: Table 2 (Continued)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Pharmacy-Supported Transition-of-Care Interventions on 30-Day Readmissions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies typically had large sample sizes of patients, with a median average sample size of 6603 patients. Seven studies, however, included less than 100 participants [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. All quantitative studies described the statistical approach taken to analysing data, and these were appropriate to the study design.…”

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for readmission of inpatients with diabetes: A systematic review

Robbins

Keung

Sambandam

et al. 2019

Journal of Diabetes and its Complications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have limited understanding of which risk factors contribute to increased readmission rates amongst people discharged from hospital with diabetes. We aim to complete the first review of its kind, to identify, in a systematic way, known risk factors for hospital readmission amongst people with diabetes, in order to better understand this costly complication. Method The review was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database. Risk factors were identified through systematic review of literature in PubMed, EMBASE & SCOPUS databases, performed independently by two authors prior to data extraction, with quality assessment and semi-quantitative synthesis according to PRISMA guidelines. Results Eighty-three studies were selected for inclusion, predominantly from the United States, and utilising retrospective analysis of local or regional data sets. 76 distinct statistically significant risk factors were identified across 48 studies. The most commonly identified risk factors were; co-morbidity burden, age, race and insurance type. Few studies conducted power calculations; unstandardized effect sizes were calculated for the majority of statistically significant risk factors. Conclusion This review is important in assessing the current state of the literature and in supporting development of interventions to reduce readmission risk. Furthermore, it provides an important foundation for development of rigorous, pre-specified risk prediction models.

show abstract

“…which has as its aim to study patients’ discharge and not specifically the subgroup of patients. 45 Furthermore some of the other patient subgroups could be categorised in more than one group; e.g. a study with patients recently discharged from the hospital who all had diabetes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a study with patients recently discharged from the hospital who all had diabetes. 45 These choices of categorising subgroups were made through discussion in the author group and based on the aim and categorisation of patient groups for each study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

For which patient subgroups does exist positive outcomes from a medication review? A systematic review

Abrahamsen

Hansen

Rossing

2020

Pharm Pract (Granada)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A medication review is a possibility to assess and optimise a patient’s medicine. A model that includes a medication review and a follow-up seem to provide the best results. However, it is not known whether specific subgroups of patients benefit more from a medication review than others. Objective: This literature review summarises the evidence that is available on which patient subgroups exist positive outcomes from a medication review carried out in a primary care setting. Methods: We performed a PICO analysis to identify keywords for setting, medication review and effect. We then conducted a search using the PubMed database (2004 to 2019) to identify studies relevant for our investigation. A screening process was carried out based on either title or abstract, and any study that matched the aim and inclusion criteria was included. All matching studies were obtained and read, and were included if they met predefined criteria such as study design, medication review and primary care. The studies were divided into subgroups. First, each subgroup was divided according to the studies’ own definition. Secondly, each subgroup was allocated as either risk patients if the subgroup described a specific patient subgroup or risk medication, if the subgroup was defined as using a specific type of medication. This was done after discussion in the author group. Results: 28 studies from a total of 935 studies were included. Identified studies were divided into either risk patients; frail, recently discharged or multimorbid patients, or risk medication; heart medication, antithrombotic medication, blood pressure lowering medication, antidiabetic medication, anti-Parkinson medication or medication increasing the risk of falls. The subgroups identified from a medication review in primary care were defined as being frail, recently discharged from hospital or multimorbid (risk patients), or defined as patients using anticoagulant or blood pressure lowering medication (risk medication). Most of the medication reviews in the studies that showed an economic effect included at least one follow-up and were delivered by a pharmacist. Conclusions: The literature review demonstrates that medication reviews delivered by pharmacists to specific subgroups of patients are a way of optimising the economic effect of medication reviews in primary care. This is obtained by reducing health-related costs or the number of contacts with primary or secondary health care services.

show abstract

Impact of a comprehensive pharmacist medication-therapy management service

Abstract: Further studies should investigate whether the integration of pharmacists in transition of care models could reduce readmission and healthcare utilization rates post-discharge.

Cited by 14 publications

References 21 publications

Effect of Pharmacy-Supported Transition-of-Care Interventions on 30-Day Readmissions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Risk factors for readmission of inpatients with diabetes: A systematic review

For which patient subgroups does exist positive outcomes from a medication review? A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About