MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964597576 · doi:10.14288/1.0380225

Evaluating the effect of pharmacist-led medication review in high-risk emergency department patients on health services utilization

2019· article· en· W2964597576 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacy and Medical Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of British ColumbiaMinistry of Health, British ColumbiaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsEmergency departmentPharmacistMedical emergencyMedicinePharmacyBusinessNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background One in nine emergency department (ED) visits in Canada are caused by adverse drug events, the unintended and harmful effects of medication use. Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists are interventions designed to optimize medications and address adverse drug events to impact patient outcomes. However, the effect of medication review on long-term outpatient health services utilization is not well understood. This research studied the effect of medication review performed by clinical pharmacists on long-term outpatient health services utilization. Methods Data included information from 10,783 patients who were part of a prospective, multicentre quality improvement evaluation from 2011 to 2013. Outpatient health services utilization was defined as total ED visits and physician contacts, aggregated to four physician specialty groups: general and family practitioners; medical specialists; surgical specialists; and imaging and laboratory specialists. Medication review involved a critical examination of a patient’s medications to identify and resolve medication-related problems and communicate these results to community-based care providers. Interrupted time series analysis compared the effect of the intervention on health services utilization relative to the standard of care controlling for pre-intervention differences in utilization. Results ED-based pharmacist-led medication review did not result in a significant level or trend change in total outpatient health services utilization, primary care physician visits, or ED visits relative to the standard of care in the 12 months following the intervention, even when stratified by age, hospital site, and whether patients were admitted to the hospital on their index visit. Conclusion This was the first study to measure long term trends of physician visits following an ED-based medication review. The lack of differences in level and trend of GP and ED visits suggest that pharmacist recommendations may not have been adequately communicated to community care providers, and/or recommendations may not have affected health care delivery. Future studies should evaluate patient and physician acceptance of pharmacist recommendations and should encourage patient follow-up to community care providers following medication reviews.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it