↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacist Remote Review of Medication Prescriptions for Appropriateness in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmacist Remote Review of Medication Prescriptions for Appropriateness in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2016.00243
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moran Lazaryan, Ibrahim Abu-Kishk, Noa Rosenfeld-Yehoshua, Sofia Berkovitch, Michal Toledano, Iris Reshef, Tal Kanari, Tomer Ziv-Baran, Matitiahu Berkovitch

Abstract

One aspect of ordering and prescribing medication is the requirement for a trained professional to review medication orders or prescriptions for appropriateness. In practice, this review process is usually performed by a clinical pharmacist. However, in many medical centers there is a shortage of staff and a pharmacist is not always available. To determine whether remote review of medication orders by a pharmacist is a plausible method in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). A pharmacist from the pharmacy department reviewed medication orders of patients admitted to our PICU over a 7-month period for appropriateness. A special form for medical orders was filled in and sent to the physician in the PICU, who replied informing whether the recommendation had been accepted. The time spent by the pharmacist for this activity was recorded. The review time for one medical record was 8.9 (95% CI, 6.9-10.9) min. Every additional drug prescribed increased the total review time by 0.8 (95% CI, 0.45-1.11) min. The pharmacist filled in 186 forms on 117 admissions for 109 children. The median review time was 15 (12.8-18.8) and 12 (9-15) min, respectively, for patients with psychiatric-neurologic disorders compared to those without (p = 0.032). Usually, a daily workload of 240 min was needed for the pharmacist accompanying the round in contrast to 108 min per day needed to review all the medical records in 95% of the cases. The physician accepted 51.2%, rejected 11.9%, and made no comment on 36.9% of the recommendations. Hospitals facing budget shortages can carry out focused remote reviews of prescriptions by the pharmacist.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,210
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,119
of 16,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#317,036
of 361,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#84
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,169 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.