MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

4CPS-097 Role of the pharmacist in the care of the lung transplant patient

2022· article· en· W4293230261 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ana Sangrador, V.M. Mora, Ruiz García. María, M Ramis, M Valero

Bibliographic record

VenueSection 4: Clinical pharmacy services · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRio Tinto
KeywordsMedicinePharmacistLung transplantationBronchiectasisCystic fibrosisLungTransplantationPulmonary function testingObstructive lung diseaseMultidisciplinary teamInternal medicinePhysical therapyIntensive care medicinePediatricsCOPDPharmacyFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background and importance</h3> After a lung transplant, patients must have knowledge about pharmacological treatment and healthy lifestyle habits. <h3>Aim and objectives</h3> To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmaceutical care for lung transplant patients from 2017 to 2020 aimed at increasing their knowledge about pharmacological treatments and healthy lifestyles and its influence on unscheduled readmissions in the first 90 days after transplantation. <h3>Material and methods</h3> 129 lung transplant patients received, by the transplant pharmacist, information sessions 2 or 3 weeks after transplantation, during the hospital stay, on medicines and healthy lifestyles and the delivery of an informative book prepared for the occasion by the multidisciplinary team. The knowledge acquired was evaluated with the completion of a questionnaire before and after the information sessions. The score of their satisfaction with the information received before and after the sessions was also collected. Fifteen days after discharge, the patients were telephoned and a further survey was carried out. The reasons for unscheduled readmissions in the period were mainly worsening of the respiratory function test and fever. <h3>Results</h3> Of the 129 lung transplanted patients in the period studied, 114 completed both questionnaires. 70 were men and the average age was 55 years. The causes of transplantation were: diffuse interstitial pulmonary disease: 58, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: 29; bronchiectasis/cystic fibrosis: 17; other causes: 7; pulmonary hypertension: 3. 99 transplants were double-lung, 20 left single-lung and 10 right single-lung. The percentage of correct answers varied from 70% in the pre-questionnaire to 85% in the post-questionnaire (p=0.000). The score of the patients’ satisfaction with the information received was 6.6 points in the pre-questionnaire and 9.3 in the post-questionnaire (p=0.000). 114 telephone calls were made to patients’ homes in order to complete the post-questionnaire. In the first 90 days after transplantation, 27% of the transplanted patients were readmitted unscheduled in 2020 compared with 38.2% in 2016 (control group) (p=0.225). <h3>Conclusion and relevance</h3> Pharmaceutical care for lung transplant patients statistically significantly improved their knowledge about medicines and healthy lifestyles as well as their degree of satisfaction with the information received, and statistically significantly improved the unscheduled readmissions in the first 90 days after transplantation. <h3>References and/or acknowledgements</h3> <h3>Conflict of interest</h3> No conflict of interest

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSection 4: Clinical pharmacy servicesSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207