临床决策支持系统对加拿大安大略省社区药剂师主导的药物审查中发现药物相关问题并向提供者提出建议的影响:试点研究。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1111/jep.14123
Karen Riley, Katherine Yap, Gaelan Foley, John Lambe, Sean Lund
{"title":"临床决策支持系统对加拿大安大略省社区药剂师主导的药物审查中发现药物相关问题并向提供者提出建议的影响:试点研究。","authors":"Karen Riley, Katherine Yap, Gaelan Foley, John Lambe, Sean Lund","doi":"10.1111/jep.14123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) during community pharmacist medication reviews.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Pilot 3-phase (group), open-label study.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Two community pharmacies in Sarnia, Ontario, with pharmacists providing medication reviews to patients.</p><p><strong>Study procedures: </strong>Five pharmacists participated in three phases (groups). During Phase 1, pharmacists conducted medication reviews in 25 adult patients using the usual approaches. In Phase 2, pharmacists were trained to use a CDSS to identify DRPs, and then conducted medication reviews using the tool in a different group of 25 adult patients. In Phase 3, pharmacists conducted medication reviews without the aid of the CDSS in 25 additional adult patients.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was recommendation to the primary care physician to alter pharmacotherapy based on medication review, assessed using mean number and frequency (yes/no) of recommendations by patient. Secondary outcomes included number of potential DRPs, actual DRPs, medication review duration time, pharmacist's perceptions of the CDSS and patient satisfaction with medication review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean number of recommendations to primary care physicians to alter pharmacotherapy per patient in Phases 1, 2 and 3 did not differ: 1.0 (SD = I.2) versus 1.5 (1.0) versus 1.5 (1.0), respectively; p = 0.223. The percentage of patients with a pharmacy recommendation sent to physicians across the phases, however, differed: 52% versus 80% versus 88%, respectively; p = 0.010, with more in Phases 2 and 3 compared to 1. There were more potential DRPs in group 2 compared to other groups. There were no differences in actual DRPs and medication review time. Pharmacists had positive attitudes about the CDSS. Patients were generally satisfied with their medication review.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This small pilot study provides some preliminary evidence for performance and feasibility of a CDSS to identify DRPs that pharmacists will act on. Future research is recommended to validate these findings in a larger sample.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of a clinical decision support system on identifying drug-related problems and making recommendations to providers during community pharmacist-led medication reviews in Ontario, Canada: A pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Karen Riley, Katherine Yap, Gaelan Foley, John Lambe, Sean Lund\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.14123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) during community pharmacist medication reviews.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Pilot 3-phase (group), open-label study.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Two community pharmacies in Sarnia, Ontario, with pharmacists providing medication reviews to patients.</p><p><strong>Study procedures: </strong>Five pharmacists participated in three phases (groups). During Phase 1, pharmacists conducted medication reviews in 25 adult patients using the usual approaches. In Phase 2, pharmacists were trained to use a CDSS to identify DRPs, and then conducted medication reviews using the tool in a different group of 25 adult patients. In Phase 3, pharmacists conducted medication reviews without the aid of the CDSS in 25 additional adult patients.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was recommendation to the primary care physician to alter pharmacotherapy based on medication review, assessed using mean number and frequency (yes/no) of recommendations by patient. Secondary outcomes included number of potential DRPs, actual DRPs, medication review duration time, pharmacist's perceptions of the CDSS and patient satisfaction with medication review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean number of recommendations to primary care physicians to alter pharmacotherapy per patient in Phases 1, 2 and 3 did not differ: 1.0 (SD = I.2) versus 1.5 (1.0) versus 1.5 (1.0), respectively; p = 0.223. The percentage of patients with a pharmacy recommendation sent to physicians across the phases, however, differed: 52% versus 80% versus 88%, respectively; p = 0.010, with more in Phases 2 and 3 compared to 1. There were more potential DRPs in group 2 compared to other groups. There were no differences in actual DRPs and medication review time. Pharmacists had positive attitudes about the CDSS. Patients were generally satisfied with their medication review.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This small pilot study provides some preliminary evidence for performance and feasibility of a CDSS to identify DRPs that pharmacists will act on. Future research is recommended to validate these findings in a larger sample.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14123\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14123","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估临床决策支持系统(CDSS)在社区药剂师药物审查过程中识别药物相关问题(DRP)的影响:试验性三阶段(小组)开放标签研究:地点和参与者:安大略省萨尼亚市的两家社区药房,由药剂师为患者提供用药指导:五名药剂师参加了三个阶段(小组)的研究。在第 1 阶段,药剂师采用常规方法对 25 名成年患者进行用药指导。在第 2 阶段,药剂师接受了使用 CDSS 识别 DRP 的培训,然后使用该工具对另一组 25 名成年患者进行药物回顾。在第 3 阶段,药剂师在不使用 CDSS 的情况下对另外 25 名成年患者进行用药评估:主要结果是根据药物审查结果向主治医师提出改变药物治疗的建议,以患者提出建议的平均数量和频率(是/否)进行评估。次要结果包括潜在的DRP数量、实际的DRP数量、药物审查持续时间、药剂师对CDSS的看法以及患者对药物审查的满意度:结果:在第一、第二和第三阶段,每名患者向初级保健医生提出的改变药物治疗建议的平均数量没有差异:分别为 1.0 (SD = I.2) 对 1.5 (1.0) 对 1.5 (1.0);P = 0.223。然而,各阶段向医生发送药房建议的患者比例有所不同:第 2 组与其他组相比,潜在的 DRP 更多。实际的 DRP 和药物审查时间没有差异。药剂师对 CDSS 持积极态度。患者对他们的用药检查普遍感到满意:这项小型试点研究为 CDSS 的性能和可行性提供了一些初步证据,以确定药剂师将采取行动的 DRP。建议今后开展研究,在更大样本中验证这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Impact of a clinical decision support system on identifying drug-related problems and making recommendations to providers during community pharmacist-led medication reviews in Ontario, Canada: A pilot study.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) during community pharmacist medication reviews.

Design: Pilot 3-phase (group), open-label study.

Setting and participants: Two community pharmacies in Sarnia, Ontario, with pharmacists providing medication reviews to patients.

Study procedures: Five pharmacists participated in three phases (groups). During Phase 1, pharmacists conducted medication reviews in 25 adult patients using the usual approaches. In Phase 2, pharmacists were trained to use a CDSS to identify DRPs, and then conducted medication reviews using the tool in a different group of 25 adult patients. In Phase 3, pharmacists conducted medication reviews without the aid of the CDSS in 25 additional adult patients.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was recommendation to the primary care physician to alter pharmacotherapy based on medication review, assessed using mean number and frequency (yes/no) of recommendations by patient. Secondary outcomes included number of potential DRPs, actual DRPs, medication review duration time, pharmacist's perceptions of the CDSS and patient satisfaction with medication review.

Results: The mean number of recommendations to primary care physicians to alter pharmacotherapy per patient in Phases 1, 2 and 3 did not differ: 1.0 (SD = I.2) versus 1.5 (1.0) versus 1.5 (1.0), respectively; p = 0.223. The percentage of patients with a pharmacy recommendation sent to physicians across the phases, however, differed: 52% versus 80% versus 88%, respectively; p = 0.010, with more in Phases 2 and 3 compared to 1. There were more potential DRPs in group 2 compared to other groups. There were no differences in actual DRPs and medication review time. Pharmacists had positive attitudes about the CDSS. Patients were generally satisfied with their medication review.

Conclusions: This small pilot study provides some preliminary evidence for performance and feasibility of a CDSS to identify DRPs that pharmacists will act on. Future research is recommended to validate these findings in a larger sample.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
Adaptation of the health literacy survey19-Europe-Q12 into Turkish culture: A psychometric study. The effect of preadmission education given to bariatric surgery patients on postoperative recovery: A randomized controlled study. What is the probability that higher versus lower quality of evidence represents true effects estimates? Effect of evidence-based nursing practices on individualised care: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Mastering meta-analysis in Microsoft Excel with MetaXL add-in: A comprehensive tutorial and guide to meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1