| Title |
Community pharmacist perceptions of delivering post-hospital discharge Medicines Use Reviews for elderly patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-016-0400-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Rutter, Helen Ramsbottom, Ray Fitzpatrick |
| Abstract |
Background The UK's Department of Health has recommended that formal communication channels between hospital and community pharmacy should be established so that post discharge Medicines Use Reviews (dMUR) become an integral part of the medicines pathway. Objective To investigate the perspective of community pharmacists on the usefulness of dMUR referrals from hospital, the suitability of patients referred and overall views on the service. Method Self-completed survey distributed to 21 community pharmacists who had received referrals from the hospital during a 9-month randomized controlled feasibility study. Results Nineteen pharmacists (90.4%) returned the survey. Seven (36.8%) felt that it was hard to engage patients with dMURs. Failure or inability of patients to attend the pharmacy were the most common barriers. Reasons for medication changes (n = 5) and indications for new medicines (n = 4) were the most common examples of extra information that would be useful on referral. Community pharmacists held positive opinions on the dMUR service and could see the benefit to patients. Pharmacists wanted more referrals but reported performing few dMURs outside this study. Conclusion This study highlights the need to improve communication between hospital and community pharmacies and to overcome barriers to performing dMURs outside the pharmacy premises in this patient group. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 63% |
| Ireland | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 26 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 31 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,194,399
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#312
of 1,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,050
of 416,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#7
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
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 416,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.