Cited by 17Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPharmacy and Medical PracticesEmergency and Acute Care Studies

Emergency department-based medication review on outpatient health services utilization: interrupted time series

Open access
Kitchen, Sophie A., McGrail, Kimberlyn, Wickham, Maeve E., Law, Michael R., Hohl, Corinne M.·2020·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

Background: One in nine emergency department (ED) visits in Canada are caused by adverse drug events, the unintended and harmful effects of medication use. Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists are interventions designed to optimize medications and address adverse drug events to impact patient outcomes. However, the effect of medication reviews on long-term outpatient health services utilization is not well understood. This research studied the effect of medication review performed by clinical pharmacists on long-term outpatient health services utilization. Methods: Data included information from 10,783 patients who were part of a prospective, multi-centre quality improvement evaluation from 2011 to 2013. Outpatient health services utilization was defined as total ED visits and physician contacts, aggregated to four physician specialty groups: general and family practitioners (GP); medical specialists; surgical specialists; and imaging and laboratory specialists. During triage, patients deemed high-risk based on their medical history, were systematically allocated to receive either a medication review (n = 6403) or the standard of care (n = 4380). Medication review involved a critical examination of a patient’s medications to identify and resolve medication-related problems and communicate these results to community care providers. Interrupted time series analysis compared the effect of the intervention on health services utilization relative to the standard of care controlling for pre-intervention differences in utilization. Results: ED-based pharmacist-led medication review did not result in a significant level or trend change in the primary outcome of total outpatient health services utilization. There were also no differences in the secondary outcomes of primary care physician visits or ED visits relative to the standard of care in the 12 months following the intervention. Our findings were consistent when stratified by age, hospital site, and whether patients were discharged on their index visit. Conclusion: This was the first study to measure long-term trends of physician visits following an ED-based medication review. The lack of differences in level and trend of GP and ED visits suggest that pharmacist recommendations may not have been adequately communicated to community-based providers, and/or recommendations may not have affected health care delivery. Future studies should evaluate physician acceptance of pharmacist recommendations and should encourage patient follow-up to community providers.

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 · 10.1186/s12913-020-05108-6

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [3]Zed PJ, Abu-Laban RB, Balen RM, et al. Incidence, severity and preventability of medication-related visits to the emergency department: a prospective study. CMAJ. 2008;178(12):1563–9. PMC2396352 18519904
  2. [18]Hohl CM Badke K Zhao A Prospective validation of clinical criteria to identify emergency department patients at high risk for adverse drug events Acad Emerg Med 2018 25 9 1015 1026 29517818 PMC6175415

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kitchen, S. A., McGrail, K., Wickham, M. E., Law, M. R., & Hohl, C. M.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • UBC Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (CA)
Corresponding author
Hohl, Corinne M.
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2020-03-26
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
254-254
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3013294735
Cited by
17
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • cIRcle (University of British Columbia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open Collections
Funders
  • Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute (N/A)
  • BC Ministry of Health (N/A)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Keywords
clinical pharmacists, adverse drug reactions, emergency department visits, physician visits, drug-related problems, pharmacist recommendations, primary care
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Ambulatory Care, Canada, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Prospective Studies, Drug Utilization Review, Young Adult, Interrupted Time Series Analysis

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