Probing pharmacists’ interventions in Long-Term Care: a systematic review

Gonçalves, João; Ramalhinho, Isabel; Sleath, Betsy; Lopes, Manuel José; Cavaco, Afonso

doi:10.1007/s41999-021-00469-5

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Existing systematic reviews have focused on one of two main areas: (1) Evaluating the impact of specific healthcare providers (e.g., pharmacists [15], specialist practitioners [16,17], physiotherapists [18]) in LTCHs. For example, Barker (2018) found that the addition of a specialist practitioner, either a doctor or nurse, to supplement usual primary care, has the potential to improve health outcomes for LTCH residents [16]; or (2) Evaluating the impact of interventions specific to health conditions, which may include several healthcare providers within the model, for example nonpharmalogical interventions for dementia [19,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models of provider care in long-term care: A rapid scoping review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction One of the current challenges in long-term care homes (LTCH) is to identify the optimal model of care, which may include specialty physicians, nursing staff, person support workers, among others. There is currently no consensus on the complement or scope of care delivered by these providers, nor is there a repository of studies that evaluate the various models of care. We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify and map what care provider models and interventions in LTCH have been evaluated to improve quality of life, quality of care, and health outcomes of residents. Methods We conducted this review over 10-weeks of English language, peer-reviewed studies published from 2010 onward. Search strategies for databases (e.g., MEDLINE) were run on July 9, 2020. Studies that evaluated models of provider care (e.g., direct patient care), or interventions delivered to facility, staff, and residents of LTCH were included. Study selection was performed independently, in duplicate. Mapping was performed by two reviewers, and data were extracted by one reviewer, with partial verification by a second reviewer. Results A total of 7,574 citations were screened based on the title/abstract, 836 were reviewed at full text, and 366 studies were included. Studies were classified according to two main categories: healthcare service delivery (n = 92) and implementation strategies (n = 274). The condition/ focus of the intervention was used to further classify the interventions into subcategories. The complex nature of the interventions may have led to a study being classified in more than one category/subcategory. Conclusion Many healthcare service interventions have been evaluated in the literature in the last decade. Well represented interventions (e.g., dementia care, exercise/mobility, optimal/appropriate medication) may present opportunities for future systematic reviews. Areas with less research (e.g., hearing care, vision care, foot care) have the potential to have an impact on balance, falls, subsequent acute care hospitalization.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models of provider care in long-term care: A rapid scoping review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Masnoon et al identified 42 tools for assessment of the appropriateness of prescribing [19]. To address the apparent scarcity of PATs specifically designed for LTC, we have decided to identify PATs previously used in the LTC context [28]. Additionally, we tried to reduce the set of PATs for panelists' assessment to avoid loss of richness during meeting discussions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prescribing-Assessment Tools were identified in studies reporting pharmacist-led interventions in institutional LTC settings from published primary sources summarized in a recent systematic review, published elsewhere (Figure 1) [28]. Additionally, a manual search of relevant references from the retrieved papers was undertaken.…”

Section: Literature Review and Prescribing-assessment Tools Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prescribing-Assessment Tools for Long-Term Care Pharmacy Practice: Reaching Consensus through a Modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medicines are the most used health technology in Long-Term Care. The prevalence of potentially inappropriate medicines amongst Long-Term Care patients is high. Pharmacists, assisted by prescribing-assessment tools, can play an important role in optimizing medication use at this level of care. Through a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, 13 long-term care and hospital pharmacists assessed as ‘appropriate’, ‘uncertain’, or ‘inappropriate’ a collection of commonly used prescribing-assessment tools as to its suitability in assisting pharmacy practice in institutional long-term care settings. A qualitative analysis of written or transcribed comments of participants was pursued to identify relevant characteristics of prescribing-assessment tools and potential hinders in their use. From 24 different tools, pharmacists classified 9 as ‘appropriate’ for pharmacy practice targeted to long-term care patients, while 3 were classified as ‘inappropriate’. The tools feature most appreciated by study participants was the indication of alternatives to potentially inappropriate medication. Lack of time and/or pharmacists and limited access to clinical information seems to be the most relevant hinders for prescribing-assessment tools used in daily practice.

show abstract

“…This assessment instrument is based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) [29]. Each of the 31 questions is valuated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 points: (1) No disability: 0-4%; (2) Mild disability: 5-24%; (3) Moderate disability: 25-49%; (4) Severe disability: 50-95%; and (5) Complete disability: 96-100%. From these 31 items, 10 items measure body functions, 17 items measure body structure, and 4 items measure environmental factors.…”

Section: Case Study: Evaluation Of Functional Profile Using the Elder...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Every day, healthcare professionals need to assess large numbers of patients-not only those with chronic or degenerative diseases but also those with long-term or chronic conditions [1]. This requires a constant reassessment of patients, especially for the aging population, among whom chronic and degenerative diseases and dysfunctions are more common and more frequent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing the Performance of Feature Selection on Regression Problems: A Case Study on Older Adults’ Functional Profile

Rojo

Pinho²,

Fonseca³

et al. 2023

IEEE Trans. Emerg. Topics Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Healthcare systems are capable of collecting a significant number of patient health-related parameters. Analyzing them to find the reasons that cause a given disease is challenging. Feature Selection techniques have been used to address this issue-reducing these parameters to a smaller set with the most "determinant" information. However, existing proposals usually focus on classification problems-aimed to detect whether a person is or is not suffering from an illness or from a finite set of illnesses. However, there are many situations in which health professionals need a numerical assessment to quantify the severity of an illness, thus dealing with a regression problem instead. Proposals using Feature Selection here are very limited. This paper examines several Feature Selection techniques to gauge their applicability to the regression-type problems, comparing these techniques by applying them to a real-life scenario on the functional profiles of older adults. Data from 829 functional profiles assessments in 49 residential homes were used in this study. The number of features was reduced from 31 to 25-with a correlation between inputs and outputs of 0.99 according to the R 2 score and a Mean Square Error (MSE) of 0.11-or to 14 features-with a correlation of 0.98 and MSE of 5.73.

show abstract

Probing pharmacists’ interventions in Long-Term Care: a systematic review

Cited by 7 publications

References 51 publications

Models of provider care in long-term care: A rapid scoping review

Models of provider care in long-term care: A rapid scoping review

Prescribing-Assessment Tools for Long-Term Care Pharmacy Practice: Reaching Consensus through a Modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Analyzing the Performance of Feature Selection on Regression Problems: A Case Study on Older Adults’ Functional Profile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About