MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA · 2026
Effects of a multicomponent intervention for clinical pharmacists on patient recall of pharmacist visits and satisfaction with care.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lapensée Anne-Julie, St-Germain Rémi, Panait Bogdan Andrei, Le Blanc Élisabeth, Phong An Ngo, Langevin Marie-Claude, Letarte Nathalie, Adam Jean-Philippe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical practice in the hospital setting has undergone major transformations in recent years, increasingly focusing on direct patient care. Limited evidence is available regarding patient-pharmacist interaction even though patients' satisfaction with care has been correlated with clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated whether a multicomponent intervention for inpatient clinical pharmacists was associated with changes in two co-primary outcomes: patient recall of pharmacist visits and satisfaction with pharmacist-provided care.
METHODS: This single-center, prospective, uncontrolled before-after quasi-experimental study was conducted at a tertiary academic center in Canada. Patients with documented clinical pharmacist involvement were enrolled before the intervention (February 6 to April 30, 2023; n=350) and after the intervention (July 1 to September 15, 2023; n=406). The interventions combined four hours of pharmacist training on implicit bias awareness and partnership care with pharmacy-student support for admission medication reconciliation. Patient recall was compared between groups using a chi-square test, and satisfaction scores were compared using an independent-samples t test.
RESULTS: Patient recall of a pharmacist visit was 58.9% (206/350) before the intervention and 64.3% (261/406) after the intervention, although this difference was not statistically significant (absolute difference, 5.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.5 to 12.4; P = .126). The surgical-unit subgroup showed an absolute difference of 21.0 percentage points. Among patients who recalled a pharmacist visit, mean satisfaction scores with pharmaceutical care were 76.6/80 and 77.4/80 before and after the intervention, respectively (mean difference, 0.75 points; 95% CI, -0.41 to 1.91).
CONCLUSION: The multicomponent intervention was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall patient recall of a pharmacist visit. The improvement observed in the surgical subgroup should be considered exploratory and warrants confirmation in future studies. Future research should consider the long-term impact of these interventions on pharmacists' practice and patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated whether a multicomponent intervention for inpatient clinical pharmacists was associated with changes in two co-primary outcomes: patient recall of pharmacist visits and satisfaction with pharmacist-provided care.
METHODS: This single-center, prospective, uncontrolled before-after quasi-experimental study was conducted at a tertiary academic center in Canada. Patients with documented clinical pharmacist involvement were enrolled before the intervention (February 6 to April 30, 2023; n=350) and after the intervention (July 1 to September 15, 2023; n=406). The interventions combined four hours of pharmacist training on implicit bias awareness and partnership care with pharmacy-student support for admission medication reconciliation. Patient recall was compared between groups using a chi-square test, and satisfaction scores were compared using an independent-samples t test.
RESULTS: Patient recall of a pharmacist visit was 58.9% (206/350) before the intervention and 64.3% (261/406) after the intervention, although this difference was not statistically significant (absolute difference, 5.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.5 to 12.4; P = .126). The surgical-unit subgroup showed an absolute difference of 21.0 percentage points. Among patients who recalled a pharmacist visit, mean satisfaction scores with pharmaceutical care were 76.6/80 and 77.4/80 before and after the intervention, respectively (mean difference, 0.75 points; 95% CI, -0.41 to 1.91).
CONCLUSION: The multicomponent intervention was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall patient recall of a pharmacist visit. The improvement observed in the surgical subgroup should be considered exploratory and warrants confirmation in future studies. Future research should consider the long-term impact of these interventions on pharmacists' practice and patient outcomes.