| Title |
Post discharge medicines use review service for older patients: recruitment issues in a feasibility study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-015-0243-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helen Frances Ramsbottom, Ray Fitzpatrick, Paul Rutter |
| Abstract |
Background The community pharmacy medicines use review (MUR) service in England has been identified as a way of providing support with medication to recently discharged patients; however initial uptake of post-discharge MUR has been low. Objective To identify barriers to recruitment into a randomised controlled feasibility study of a hospital referral system to older patients' regular community pharmacists. Method Ward pharmacists at Southport District General Hospital identified patients aged over 65 to be approached by a researcher to assess eligibility and discuss involvement in the trial. Participants were randomised to referral for a post discharge MUR with their regular community pharmacist, or to standard discharge care. Reasons for patients not participating were collected. Results Over a 9-month period 337 potential participants were identified by ward pharmacists. Of these, 132 were eligible and 60 were recruited. Barriers to recruitment included competing priorities among ward pharmacists, and national restrictions placed on MURs e.g. housebound patients and those requiring carer support with medication. Lack of expected benefit resulted in a high proportion of patient refusals. Conclusion The current provisions for post discharge MURs exclude many older people from participation, including those possibly in greatest need. Unfamiliarity with the role of the pharmacist in transitional care may have affected patients' perceived 'cost-benefit' of taking part in this study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 23 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 25 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 27 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,423,393
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#795
of 1,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,447
of 394,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,097 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 394,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.