Lene Kjeldsen

Dr. Lene Kjeldsen


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
16 April 2014 in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LKLene Kjeldsen
Lene Kjeldsen
TBTrine Birkholm
Trine Birkholm
HFHanne Fischer
Hanne Fischer
TGTrine Graabæk
Trine Graabæk
KKKarina Porsborg Kibsdal
Karina Porsborg Kibsdal
TTTania Holtum Truelshøj
Tania Holtum Truelshøj

12 December 2014 in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CVChristine Tilsted Villesen
Christine Tilsted Villesen
JHJette Højsted
Jette Højsted
LNLotte Stig Nørgaard
Lotte Stig Nørgaard
LKLene Kjeldsen
Lene Kjeldsen
PNPer Rotbøll Nielsen
Per Rotbøll Nielsen
LCLona Louring Christrup
Lona Louring Christrup

28 April 2011 in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LKLene Kjeldsen
Lene Kjeldsen
Lars BjerrumLars Bjerrum
Lars Bjerrum
HHHanne Herborg
Hanne Herborg
PKPia Knudsen
Pia Knudsen
CRCharlotte Rossing
Charlotte Rossing
BSBirthe Søndergaard
Birthe Søndergaard

20 May 2017 in Pharmacy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LKLene Kjeldsen
Lene Kjeldsen
COCharlotte Olesen
Charlotte Olesen
MHMerete Kjær Hansen
Merete Kjær Hansen
TATrine Andersen
Trine Andersen
The objective was to investigate type, frequency and result of clinical outcomes used in studies to assess the effect of clinical pharmacy interventions in inpatient care. The literature search using Pubmed.gov was performed for the period up to 2013 using the search phrases: “Intervention(s)” and “pharmacist(s)” and “controlled” and “outcome(s)” or “effect(s)”. Primary research studies in English of controlled, clinical pharmacy intervention studies, including outcome evaluation, were selected. Titles, abstracts and full-text papers were assessed individually by two reviewers, and inclusion was determined by consensus. In total, 37 publications were included in the review. The publications presented similar intervention elements but differed in study design. A large variety of outcome measures (135) had been used to evaluate the effect of the interventions; most frequently clinical measures/assessments by physician and health care service use. No apparent pattern was established among primary outcome measures with significant effect in favour of the intervention, but positive effect was most frequently related to studies that included power calculations and sufficient inclusion of patients (73% vs. 25%). This review emphasizes the importance of considering the relevance of outcomes selected to assess clinical pharmacy interventions and the importance of conducting a proper power calculation.

9 June 2017 in Pharmacy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LKLene Kjeldsen
Lene Kjeldsen
TATrine Andersen
Trine Andersen
COCharlotte Olesen
Charlotte Olesen
The aim of the review was to investigate whether an assessment of clinical significance can be related to specific drug-related problems (DRPs) and hence may assist in prioritizing individual categories of DRP categorization systems. The literature search using Google Scholar was performed for the period 1990 to 2013 and comprised primary research studies of clinical pharmacy interventions including DRP and clinical significance assessments. Two reviewers assessed the titles, abstracts, and full-text papers individually, and inclusion was determined by consensus. A total of 27 unique publications were included in the review. They had been conducted in 14 different countries and reported a large range of DRPs (71–5948). Five existing DRP categorisation systems were frequently used, and two methods employed to assess clinical significance were frequently reported. The present review could not establish a consistent relation between the DRP categories and the level of clinical significance. However, the categories “ADR” and possibly “Drug interaction” were often associated with an assessed high clinical significance, albeit they were infrequently identified in the studies. Hence, clinical significance assessments do not seem to be useful in prioritizing individual DRPs in the DRP categorization systems. Consequently, it may be necessary to reconsider our current approach for evaluating DRPs.

21 August 2024 in European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CBChristine Flagstad Bech
Christine Flagstad Bech
TKTrine Kart
Trine Kart
LKLene Kjeldsen
Lene Kjeldsen
MPMarianne Brøndum Petersen
Marianne Brøndum Petersen
TATrine Andersen
Trine Andersen
Objectives The role of the hospital pharmacist is evolving, and in many countries pharmacists play an increasingly patient-centred role in healthcare. This study aimed to investigate the development of Danish hospital clinical pharmacy services from 2008 to 2023 and compare their current state to the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) statements of clinical pharmacy services. Methods Four Danish reports describing the current state of clinical pharmacy in Danish hospitals released in 2008, 2013, 2019 and 2023 were analysed and compared. The reports’ data were obtained through questionnaires sent to all hospital pharmacies in Denmark. Data on staff resources and the clinical pharmacy services provided by all hospital pharmacies were extracted, analysed using descriptive statistics and compared with the EAHP statements of hospital clinical pharmacy services. Results The number of clinical pharmacists increased by 85% from 2008 to 2023, and the number of pharmaconomists (Danish title of a healthcare professional with responsibilities comparable to a pharmacy technician) increased by 59% from 2013 to 2023. In 2023, there were 2.77 pharmaconomists for every pharmacist employed. The pharmaconomist ratio/100 beds increased from 1.93 in 2013 to 3.92 in 2023. The pharmacist ratio/100 beds increased from 0.54 in 2008 to 1.41 in 2023. In 2023, the main patient-level services provided by pharmacists were medication reviews, medication histories and reconciliation, and dispensing and administration. The main pharmaconomist services were dispensing and administration, medication histories and reconciliation, and prescription reviews. The time spent on clinical pharmacy services shifted towards patient-level services over the years. Furthermore, clinical pharmacy services shifted towards greater fulfilment of the EAHP statements. Conclusions By providing an overview and comparing Danish clinical pharmacy services to the EAHP statements, we have identified areas for further development, such as the hospital pharmacist being an integral part of all patient care teams, to guide future research and practice.