Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 206

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The value of inpatient pharmaceutical counselling to elderly patients prior to discharge

Open access
Al‐Rashed, S. A., Wright, D. J., Roebuck, N., Sunter, W., Chrystyn, H.·2002·British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

Aims The use of medication and information discharge summaries (MIDS) has become a standard procedure in many hospitals. We have evaluated if these summaries, together with in‐patient pharmaceutical counselling backed up with a simple medicine reminder card, may help with the delivery of seamless pharmaceutical care. Methods Elderly patients prescribed more than four items discharged to their own home received the standard discharge policy including a recently introduced MIDS and medicine reminder card. Each patient's GP was sent a copy on discharge. Pre‐discharge a pharmacist counselled study patients about their medicines and compliance. A research pharmacist visited patients in their home approximately 2–3 weeks and at 3 months post‐discharge to determine their drug knowledge, compliance, home medicine stocks and any healthcare related events. Results Forty‐three study and 40 control patients completed both visits. Their mean (s.d.) ages were 80.2 (5,7) and 81.1 (5,8) years and they were prescribed 7.1 (1.8) and 7.1 (2.3) items, respectively. At visit 1 knowledge (P < 0.01) and compliance (P < 0.001) was better in the study group. At visit 2 compliance had improved in the study group (P < 0.001). Unplanned visits to the GP and readmission to hospital amongst the study group were 19 and 5, respectively, which were both significantly less (P < 0.05) than 27 and 13 in the control group. At visit 2 for the study group the 24 unplanned GP visits and three re‐admissions were significantly (P < 0.05) less than the respective 32 and 15 in the control group. At visit 1, two study group patients had altered their own medication compared with 10 control patients. At visit 2 these reduced to 0 and 4, respectively. Conclusions In‐patient pharmaceutical counselling, linked to a medication and information discharge summary and a medicine reminder card, contributed to better drug knowledge and compliance together with reduced unplanned visits to the doctor and re‐admissions. A pharmaceutical domiciliary visit consolidated the improved healthcare outcomes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01707.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 206

Metadata

Authors
Al‐Rashed, S. A., Wright, D. J., Roebuck, N., Sunter, W., & Chrystyn, H.
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-12
Volume
54
Issue
6
Pages
657-664
ISSN
  • 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2125
OpenAlex
W1766940943
Cited by
206
References
0
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The value of inpatient pharmaceutical counselling to elderly patients prior to discharge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01707.x
The paper
Al‐Rashed, S. A., Wright, D. J., Roebuck, N., Sunter, W., & Chrystyn, H. (2002). The value of inpatient pharmaceutical counselling to elderly patients prior to discharge. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01707.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.