Evaluation of clinical interventions made by pharmacists, doctors and nurses in a hospital post-discharge telephone service: a retrospective cohort study
- 1Eastern Health Pharmacy Department, Melbourne, VIC Australia
- 2Eastern Health, Melbourne, VIC Australia
- 3Monash University, Melbourne, VIC Australia
Abstract
Introduction: Clinician-led post-discharge telephone follow-up programs are effective in resolving medication-related problems (MRPs) in older adults. Our hospital offers a post-discharge telephone service, Talk-To-You-Tomorrow (TTYT), to general medicine patients to support medication management following hospital discharge. However, little is known about the the types of interventions used to address MRPs between clinicians within post-discharge telephone services.
Aim: To compare the types of interventions utalised (pharmacists versus non-pharmacist clinicians) in addressing MRPs for general medicine patients identified through a post-discharge telephone follow-up (TFU) service.
Method: A retrospective cohort study investigated interventions provided to general medicine patients between June 2022 to May 2023 who underwent TTYT in a large metropolitan health service. Contemporaneous records were used to identify patients with MRPs and there corresponding interventions. MRPs were categorised using the Drug Evaluation Tools (NESA: necessity, effectiveness, safety and adherence). Interventions were classified using The Swiss Society of Public Health Administration and Hospital Pharmacists tools (patient-level, prescriber-level, drug-level and other interventions). Primary outcome was the difference in interventions (pharmacists versus non-pharmacist clinicians). Secondary outcome was the types of MRPs identified by different clinicians. Outcomes were evaluated using the Pearson’s χ2 test. Odds of MRP identification by clinician group were estimated with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results: From 3,815 TTYT consultation records, 526 patients had MRPs. All MRPs had at least one intervention (227 pharmacist's and 299 non-pharmacist clinicians'). Pharmacists liaised with other clinicians the most (7.9% (18/227) vs 4.7% (14/299)) versus non-pharmacist clinicians who utilised more drug-level interventions (18% (53/299) vs 13.2% (30/227)). There were no statistically significant differences in the intervention types across pharmacists versus non-pharmacists (X2 (3, N = 526) = 4.271, p = 0.234) and MRP types identified by different clinicians (X2 (6, N = 526) = 11.777, p = 0.067). The odds of a pharmacist identifying an MRP was 2.27 times greater than non-pharmacists (p < 0.001, CI: 1.82–2.82).
Conclusion: Clinicians mostly provided patient-level interventions however, no difference in the types of MRP’s identified in a post-discharge TTYT consult between various clinicians. Importantly, pharmacists were more likely identifying a MRP than other clinicians, which highlights the beneficial role of a pharmacist in medication management and their impact on medication safety.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-026-02207-y.
Related
- Improving Same Day Discharge Process After Outpatient Percutaneous Coronary Interventions
- Real-World Outcomes of a Telephone-Based Virtual Cognitive Rehabilitation Therapy Program: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis
- Clinical decision support tool evaluation: Correction of direct oral anticoagulant dosing errors by clinical pharmacists and physicians
- The added value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography to BI-RADS in the evaluation of breast lesions presenting with pathological nipple discharge
- Evaluation of a Structured Educational Program for Community Pharmacists' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Satisfaction Toward Diabetes Patient-Centered Care: A Non-Randomized Quasi-Experimental Study.
BibTeX
@article{leong2026evaluation,
title = {{Evaluation of clinical interventions made by pharmacists, doctors and nurses in a hospital post-discharge telephone service: a retrospective cohort study}},
author = {Kum Chuan Leong and Darshana Meanger and Philip Wu and Alex Wong and Wee Tjun Tee and Michelle Simango and Bianca Levkovich},
journal = {International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1007/s11096-026-02207-y},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-026-02207-y},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Evaluation of clinical interventions made by pharmacists, doctors and nurses in a hospital post-discharge telephone service: a retrospective cohort study
AU - Kum Chuan Leong
AU - Darshana Meanger
AU - Philip Wu
AU - Alex Wong
AU - Wee Tjun Tee
AU - Michelle Simango
AU - Bianca Levkovich
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/02
JO - International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
DO - 10.1007/s11096-026-02207-y
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-026-02207-y
AB - Introduction: Clinician-led post-discharge telephone follow-up programs are effective in resolving medication-related problems (MRPs) in older adults. Our hospital offers a post-discharge telephone service, Talk-To-You-Tomorrow (TTYT), to general medicine patients to support medication management following hospital discharge. However, little is known about the the types of interventions used to address MRPs between clinicians within post-discharge telephone services. Aim: To compare the types of interventions utalised (pharmacists versus non-pharmacist clinicians) in addressing MRPs for general medicine patients identified through a post-discharge telephone follow-up (TFU) service. Method: A retrospective cohort study investigated interventions provided to general medicine patients between June 2022 to May 2023 who underwent TTYT in a large metropolitan health service. Contemporaneous records were used to identify patients with MRPs and there corresponding interventions. MRPs were categorised using the Drug Evaluation Tools (NESA: necessity, effectiveness, safety and adherence). Interventions were classified using The Swiss Society of Public Health Administration and Hospital Pharmacists tools (patient-level, prescriber-level, drug-level and other interventions). Primary outcome was the difference in interventions (pharmacists versus non-pharmacist clinicians). Secondary outcome was the types of MRPs identified by different clinicians. Outcomes were evaluated using the Pearson’s χ2 test. Odds of MRP identification by clinician group were estimated with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: From 3,815 TTYT consultation records, 526 patients had MRPs. All MRPs had at least one intervention (227 pharmacist's and 299 non-pharmacist clinicians'). Pharmacists liaised with other clinicians the most (7.9% (18/227) vs 4.7% (14/299)) versus non-pharmacist clinicians who utilised more drug-level interventions (18% (53/299) vs 13.2% (30/227)). There were no statistically significant differences in the intervention types across pharmacists versus non-pharmacists (X2 (3, N = 526) = 4.271, p = 0.234) and MRP types identified by different clinicians (X2 (6, N = 526) = 11.777, p = 0.067). The odds of a pharmacist identifying an MRP was 2.27 times greater than non-pharmacists (p < 0.001, CI: 1.82–2.82). Conclusion: Clinicians mostly provided patient-level interventions however, no difference in the types of MRP’s identified in a post-discharge TTYT consult between various clinicians. Importantly, pharmacists were more likely identifying a MRP than other clinicians, which highlights the beneficial role of a pharmacist in medication management and their impact on medication safety. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-026-02207-y.
SN - 2210-7703
SN - 2210-7711
ER -