The purpose of the study was to investigate the clinical effect of a clinical pharmacist (CP) intervention upon admission to hospital on inpatient harm and to assess a potential educational bias. Over 16 months, 593 adult patients taking ≥4 medications daily were included from three Danish acute medicine wards. Patients were randomized to either the CP intervention or the usual care (prospective control). To assess a potential educational bias, a retrospective control group was formed by randomization. The CP intervention comprised medication history, medication reconciliation, medication review and entry of proposed prescriptions into the electronic prescribing system. The primary outcome of inpatient harm was identified using triggers from the Institute of Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool. Harms were validated and rated for severity by two independent and blinded outcome panels. Secondary end‐points were harms per patient, length of hospital stay, readmissions and 1‐year mortality. Harm affected 11% of the patients in the intervention group compared to 17% in the combined control group, odds ratio (OR) 0.57 (CI 0.32–1.02, p = 0.06). The incidence of harm was similar in the intervention and prospective control groups, OR 0.80 (CI 0.40–1.59, p = 0.52) but occurred less frequently in the intervention than in the retrospective control group OR 0.46 (CI 0.25–0.85, p = 0.01). An educational bias from the intervention to the control group might have contributed to this negative outcome. In conclusion, the CP intervention at admission to hospital had no statistically significant effect on inpatient harm.

Background: The prevalence of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and polypharmacy is increasing and has amplified the importance of examining inappropriate prescribing (IP) in CKD. This review focuses on the latest research regarding the prevalence of IP in CKD and the related adverse clinical effects and explores new interventions against IP.Method: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library searching articles published between June 2016 and March 2022.Results: Twenty‐seven studies were included. An IP prevalence of 12.6% to 96% and 0.3% to 66% was reported in hospital and outpatient settings, respectively. In nonhospital settings, the prevalence of IP varied between 3.9% and 60%. IP was associated with higher risk of hospitalisation (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17–1.81), higher bleeding rate (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.37) and higher risk of all‐cause mortality (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.13). Three studies reported the impact of interventions on IP.Conclusion: This review highlights widespread IP in CKD patients across healthcare settings, with varying prevalence rates. IP is substantially linked to adverse outcomes in patients. While limited interventions show promise, urgent research is needed to develop effective strategies addressing IP and improving CKD patient care.

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.

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.

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.