Consensus on the criteria for patient prioritization in hospital clinical pharmacy services: a Delphi study

Botelho, Stephanie Ferreira; Pantuzza, Laís Lessa Neiva; Marinho, Claudyane Pinheiro; Reis, Adriano Max Moreira

doi:10.1007/s11096-022-01424-5

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This indicates that the pharmacists disagreed with the risk categorisation provided by the algorithms. The non-clinical ground rules could also have influenced the selection and deselection, as the rules did not consider clinical risk factors [ 5 ]. It could also be a coincidence that the deselected patient had high risk scores since they were deselected for various reasons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of prioritisation algorithms for the selection of patients for medication reviews in the emergency department: a cross-sectional study

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Risk prioritisation algorithms provide patients with a risk category that guides pharmacists to choose those needing medication reviews (MRs) the most. For this study the Medicine Risk Score (MERIS) and a modified Assessment of Risk Tool (ART) were used. Aim To examine how the selection of patients by the clinical pharmacists in an emergency department for MRs compared with the categorisation provided by MERIS and a modified version of ART (mART). Furthermore, examine the agreement between MERIS and mART. Method A cross-sectional study was conducted using data on all admitted patients during a two-month period. Data were entered into the prioritisation algorithms and independently ranked by the six pharmacists who were observed as they selected patients for MR. Risk scores and categorisations were compared between the algorithms and the pharmacists’ ranking using t-test, Z-test, Chi square, Kruskal Wallis H-test, or Kappa statistics. Results The study included 1133 patients. Significant differences were found between the pharmacists and the algorithms. The sensitivity and specificity of MERIS were 37.8% and 73.6%, for mART, 33.0% and 75.9%. Kappa was 0.58, showing moderate agreement. No significant differences were observed between the individual pharmacists’ selection, but differences were significant between how pharmacists ranked the importance of the provided MRs. Conclusion Pharmacists disagreed with the risk categorisation provided by MERIS and mART. However, MERIS and mART had similar sensitivity, specificity, and moderate agreement. Further research should focus on how clinical algorithms affect the selection of patients and on the importance of the MRs carried out by pharmacists.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Important risk factors for DRPs include polypharmacy, female gender, high risk medications, renally eliminated drugs and being elderly (most often 65 years of age and older) [ 2 , 3 ]. Some of these risk factors are also used as criteria for patient prioritisation for MRs [ 5 , 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%