Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 319

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice

Open access
Zermansky, Arnold G, Petty, Duncan R, Raynor, David K, Freemantle, Nick, Vail, Andy, Lowe, Catherine J·2001·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether a pharmacist can effectively review repeat prescriptions through consultations with elderly patients in general practice. Design: Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist against normal general practice review. Setting: Four general practices. Participants: 1188 patients aged 65 or over who were receiving at least one repeat prescription and living in the community. Intervention: Patients were invited to a consultation at which the pharmacist reviewed their medical conditions and current treatment. Main outcome measures: Number of changes to repeat prescriptions over one year, drug costs, and use of healthcare services. Results: 590 (97%) patients in the intervention group were reviewed compared with 233 (44%) in the control group. Patients seen by the pharmacist were more likely to have changes made to their repeat prescriptions (mean number of changes per patient 2.2 v 1.9; difference=0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.57; P=0.02). Monthly drug costs rose in both groups over the year, but the rise was less in the intervention group (mean difference £4.72 per 28 days, −£7.04 to -£2.41); equivalent to £61 per patient a year. Intervention patients had a smaller rise in the number of drugs prescribed (0.2 v 0.4; mean difference −0.2, −0.4 to −0.1). There was no evidence that review of treatment by the pharmacist affected practice consultation rates, outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, or death rate. Conclusions: A clinical pharmacist can conduct effective consultations with elderly patients in general practice to review their drugs. Such review results in significant changes in patients' drugs and saves more than the cost of the intervention without affecting the workload of general practitioners. What is already known on this topic: Review of patients on long term drug treatment is important but is done inadequately Evidence from the United States shows that pharmacists can improve patient care by reviewing drug treatment What this study adds: Consultations with a clinical pharmacist are an effective method of reviewing the drug treatment of older patients Review by a pharmacist results in more drug changes and lower prescribing costs than normal care plus a much higher review rate Use of healthcare services by patients is not increased

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 · 10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1340

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 319

Metadata

Authors
Zermansky, A. G., Petty, D. R., Raynor, D. K., Freemantle, N., Vail, A., & Lowe, C. J.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2001-12-08
Volume
323
Issue
7325
Pages
1340
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2133872349
Cited by
319
References
0
FWCI
7.05
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: Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1340
The paper
Zermansky, A. G., Petty, D. R., Raynor, D. K., Freemantle, N., Vail, A., & Lowe, C. J. (2001). Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1340

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.