Active Communication of a Pharmacy Discharge Plan for Patients with Respiratory Diseases: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Drug-related problems (DRPs) are common following hospital discharge. Active communication of a written pharmacy discharge plan may increase the number of community pharmacists' interventions. Objective: To assess the impact of the active communication of a written pharmacy discharge plan. Methods: This was a pilot study comparing 2 groups of pharmacists over a period of 6 weeks. Participating community pharmacists were assigned to either the control group (those who provided usual patient care during hospital stay and transmission of a standard written pharmacy discharge plan) or the active communication group (those who, in addition to the usual care provided in the control group and the written pharmacy discharge plan, included a list of up to 3 DRPs with proposed interventions to resolve them and a telephone call from the hospital pharmacist to the community pharmacist to facilitate the transfer of information). The patients enrolled were adults admitted to the respiratory unit of our hospital who were returning home following their discharge. Patients were assigned to the control or the active communication group based on the community pharmacy where they usually filled their prescriptions. Results: Overall, 36 community pharmacists were included in the study and assigned to either the active communication (n = 17) or control group (n = 19). A total of 22 patients were assigned to either the control group (n = 8) or the active communication group (n = 14). The mean number of community pharmacist interventions per patient was 4.2 in the active communication group and 0.9 in the control group (p = 0.0004). The mean number of DRPs per patient for which there was at least one intervention made by the community pharmacist was 2.8 in the active communication group and 0.6 in the control group (p = 0.0001). Conclusions: Results of this pilot study demonstrate that the active communication of a written discharge plan may increase the number of interventions by community pharmacists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".