Implementation of Ward-Based Clinical Pharmacy Services in Belgium—Description of the Impact on a Geriatric Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-centered clinical pharmacy services are still poorly developed in Europe, despite their demonstrated advantages in North America and the UK. Reporting European pilot experiences is, therefore, important to assess the usefulness of clinical pharmacy services in this specific context. OBJECTIVE: To report the results of the first implementation of Belgian clinical pharmacy services targeting patients at high risk of drug-related problems. METHODS: An intervention study was conducted by a trained clinical pharmacist providing pharmaceutical care to 101 patients (mean age 82.2 y; mean +/- SD number of prescribed drugs 7.8 +/- 3.5) admitted to an acute geriatric unit, over a 7 month period. All interventions to optimize prescribing, and their acceptance, were recorded. An external panel (2 geriatricians, 1 clinical pharmacist) assessed the interventions' clinical significance. Persistence of interventions after discharge was assessed through telephone calls. RESULTS: A total of 1066 interventions were made over the 7 month period. The most frequent drug-related problems underlying interventions were: underuse (15.9%), wrong dose (11.9%), inappropriate duration of therapy (9.7%), and inappropriate choice of medicine (9.6%). The most prevalent consequences were to discontinue a drug (24.5%), add a drug (18.6%), and change dosage (13.7%). Acceptance rate by physicians was 87.8%. Among interventions with clinical impact, 68.3% and 28.6% had moderate and major clinical significance, respectively. Persistence of chronic treatment changes 3 months after discharge was 84%. CONCLUSIONS: Involving a trained clinical pharmacist in a geriatric team led to clinically relevant and well-accepted optimization of medicine use. This initiative may be a springboard for further development of clinical pharmacy services.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".