Telephone versus In-Person Pharmacist-Led Medication Reviews in Home Dialysis Patients: Evaluating Quality of Care and Patient Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic required pharmacists in a provincial Home Dialysis Clinic to adapt from in-person to telephone-based medication reviews. Studies have shown that in-person pharmacist interventions in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) lead to a reduction of drug therapy problems (DTPs), however, it’s unknown if telephone interventions provide similar outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether differences in quality of care exist between in-person vs. telephone medication reviews in home dialysis patients and to evaluate patient satisfaction with telephone medication reviews. Data from the two most recent in-person medication reviews was compared with the two most recent telephone medication reviews for each patient (n = 46). There were no statistically significant differences in DTPs identified between in-person and telephone medication reviews (p = 0.431). Physician acceptance of pharmacist recommendations was higher for in-person medication reviews (p = 0.009). Patients were satisfied with the care they received with pharmacist-led telephone medication reviews, however, 29% (n = 7) would prefer an in-person medication review once per year with telephone medication reviews the rest of the time. Overall, patients were satisfied with the care they received from telephone 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".