MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289261054 · doi:10.1136/emermed-2021-211660

Impact of pharmacist interventions provided in the emergency department on quality use of medicines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4289261054 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.

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

VenueEmergency Medicine Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionCINAHLEmergency departmentMEDLINEPharmacistPharmacyMeta-analysisSystematic reviewFamily medicineEmergency medicineClinical pharmacyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Pharmacists have an increasing role as part of the emergency department (ED) team. However, the impact of ED-based pharmacy interventions on the quality use of medicines has not been well characterised. Objective This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence from studies examining the impact of interventions provided by pharmacists on the quality use of medicines in adults presenting to ED. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and reviewed full texts. Studies that compared the impact of interventions provided by pharmacists with usual care in ED and reported medication-related primary outcomes were included. Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 and Newcastle-Ottawa tools were used to assess the risk of bias. Summary estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, along with sensitivity and sub-group analyses. Results Thirty-one studies involving 13 242 participants were included. Pharmacists were predominantly involved in comprehensive medication review, advanced pharmacotherapy assessment, staff and patient education, identification of medication discrepancies and drug-related problems, medication prescribing and co-prescribing, and medication preparation and administration. The activities reduced the number of medication errors by a mean of 0.33 per patient (95% CI −0.42 to −0.23, I 2 =51%) and the proportion of patients with at least one error by 73% (risk ratio (RR)=0.27, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.40, I 2 =85.3%). The interventions were also associated with more complete and accurate medication histories, increased appropriateness of prescribed medications by 58% (RR=1.58, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.06, I 2 =95%) and quicker initiation of time-critical medications. Conclusion The evidence indicates improved quality use of medicines when pharmacists are included in ED care teams. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165234.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.000

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 head0.745
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.119 · 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