| Title |
Medication reviews in primary care in Sweden: importance of clinical pharmacists’ recommendations on drug-related problems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-015-0189-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara Modig, Lydia Holmdahl, Åsa Bondesson |
| Abstract |
Background One way of preventing and solving drug-related problems in frail elderly is to perform team-based medication reviews. Objective To evaluate the quality of the clinical pharmacy service to primary care using structured medication reviews, focusing on the clinical significance of the recommendations made by clinical pharmacists. Setting A random sample of 150 patients (out of 1541) who received structured team based medication reviews. The patients lived at a geriatric nursing home or were ≥65 years and lived in ordinary housing with medication-related community help. Method Based on information on symptoms, kidney function, blood pressure, diagnoses and the medication list, a pharmacist identified possible drug-related problems and supplied recommendations for the general practitioner to act on. Two independent physicians retrospectively ranked the clinical significance of the recommendations according to Hatoum, with rankings ranging between 1 (adverse significance) and 6 (extremely significant). Main outcome measure The clinical significance of the recommendations. Results In total 349 drug-related problems were identified, leading to recommendations. The vast majority of the recommendations (96 %) were judged to have significance 3 or higher and more than the half were judged to have significance 4 or higher. Conclusion The high proportion of clinically significant recommendations provided by pharmacists when performing team-based medication reviews suggest that these clinical pharmacy services have potential to increase prescribing quality. As such, the medication reviews have the potential for contributing to a better and safer drug therapy for elderly patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 217 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 45 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 8% |
| Researcher | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 30 | 14% |
| Unknown | 58 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 71 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Unknown | 66 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 July 2021.
All research outputs
#7,486,435
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#510
of 1,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,106
of 394,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 394,496 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 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.