Evaluation of the current use and impact of the United Kingdom Clinical Pharmacy Association (UKCPA) handbook of perioperative medicines
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Originally a paper-based resource, the UKCPA Handbook of Perioperative Medicines1 moved online in 2019 and the website was updated in March 2024, with improved functionality. The resource aims to standardise management of medication during the perioperative period by providing evidence-based advice and guidance for healthcare professionals, removing the need for local Trust guidelines. Aim To evaluate current use of, and opinions of users of, the UKCPA Handbook of Perioperative Medicines. Methods Usage data, including engagement rate and time and frequently accessed monographs, was obtained for 4th-March-2024 to 29th-May-2024 from Google Analytics and the website dashboard. Further usage information and user opinion was collected using a 9-question survey hosted on Survey Monkey and disseminated via UKCPA’s ‘X’ account and Surgery and Theatres Committee, plus NHS England non-medical pre-operative association network. Ethical approval was not required as this was a service evaluation.2 Results Analytics Most (79%, 23158) users are from the United Kingdom where the engagement rate is 64%. Outside the UK most users are from Australia (1858), Ireland (785) and the United States (575). The average engagement time is 3-minutes and 42-seconds. Frequently accessed monographs include antiplatelets (aspirin, clopidogrel), direct oral anticoagulants (apixaban, edoxaban) and diabetic medication (sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, insulin). Survey Of the 237 responses received, individual question completion rates varied. 72% (170) of respondents were aware of the Handbook of which 89% (151) use it, with 22% (34) having it as their sole resource. Respondents were predominantly from NHS secondary care sector and comprised of pharmacists (24%, 58), pre-assessment nurses (21%, 49) and anaesthetists (19%, 44). Most (84%, 133) users access it via desktop. 85% (132) of respondents either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that it has a professional appearance, 82% (128) that it has good search functionality and 80% (126) that they could find the required information. Discussion and conclusion The Handbook is mostly accessed within the United Kingdom, where it has a good engagement rate.3 However, there is usage on a global scale from countries including Australia, Ireland, USA, NZ, Canada, and Germany. Monographs for medicines considered ‘high-risk’ or where there is potential controversy about their perioperative management are the most accessed. There is good awareness of the Handbook from respondents, with the majority of those familiar with it using it in their area of work. It is expected that those who are aware of the Handbook would be more likely to respond to the survey. The Handbook is mainly used within the NHS secondary care setting, where most surgical procedures take place. However, it is likely that due to how the survey was disseminated, this influenced the healthcare professional groups that responded. In general, the Handbook is deemed to have a professional appearance, good search functionality and includes information that healthcare professionals require. The aim of the Handbook is to provide a standardised, evidence-based resource for healthcare professionals for perioperative medicines management. The survey results indicate that there is still variation in practice with centres choosing to use it in conjunction with other guidelines as opposed to their sole resource. References 1. United Kingdom Clinical Pharmacy Association. Handbook of Perioperative Medicines [Internet]. UKCPA 2024 [cited 2024 May 31]. Available from https://periop-handbook.ukclinicalpharmacy.org 2. NHS Health Research Authority. Do I need NHS REC review? [Internet]. {updated 2010 September, cited 2024 May 31]. Available from https://hra-decisiontools.org.uk/ethics/. 3. Deflato. What is the engagement rate in Google Analytics (GA4)? [Internet]. Dataflo 2024 [cited 2024 May 31] Available from https://wwwdataflo.io/metricbase/engagement-rate-in-google-analytics-4#:~:text=in%20a%session
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».