↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Pharmacists’ audit on improving the quality of prescription of dabigatran etexilate methanesulfonate: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 127)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Impact of Pharmacists’ audit on improving the quality of prescription of dabigatran etexilate methanesulfonate: a retrospective study
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40780-017-0077-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teppei Shimizu, Yoshio Momose, Ryuichi Ogawa, Masahiro Takahashi, Hirotoshi Echizen

Abstract

Appropriate prescription of dabigatran etexilate methanesulfonate (JAN) is more complicated than assumed, because there are totally 10 items of contraindications and instructions for dosage reduction depending on patients' characteristics. We aimed to study whether the routine audit of first-time prescriptions of dabigatran performed by pharmacists is effective in improving the quality of prescription. A retrospective re-audit was performed on all the prescriptions of dabigatran issued at Kitahara International Hospital, Tokyo between March 2011 and February 2014, by evaluating the prescriptions rigorously against the approved prescribing information of the drug. The original routine audit of the prescriptions for inpatients was performed by hospital pharmacists using electronic medical records (EMR), whereas the audit for ambulant patients receiving external prescriptions was performed by community pharmacists using information obtained mainly by questioning patients. The frequencies of inappropriate prescriptions detected by the re-audit in the two groups were compared. Two hundred and twenty-eight patients (131 ambulant patients and 97 inpatients) were prescribed dabigatran for the first time during the study period. All patients met the approved indications. While 33% of the prescriptions for ambulant patients showed at least one violation of the approved usage, only 11% of the prescriptions for inpatients showed violations (p < 0.001). Two ambulant patients with creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min were dispensed dabigatran, whereas no such case was found among inpatients. A significantly greater proportion of ambulant patients aged ≥70 years showed violation of the instruction for dosage reduction compared to inpatients of the same age group (18 and 4%, respectively). The present study suggests that pharmacists may achieve better performance in auditing prescriptions of dabigatran when medical records are fully available than when information is available mainly by questioning patients. Further large-scale studies are required to clarify whether the audit of dabigatran prescriptions improves ultimate therapeutic outcomes or complications.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 23%
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unknown 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#5,378,996
of 21,554,340 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences
#22
of 127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,129
of 392,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,554,340 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 392,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them