A pilot study to assess the appropriateness of prescribing from a collaborative pharmacist prescribing study in a surgical pre admission clinic

Hale, Andrew, Martin, Jenny, Coombes, Ian, McDougall, David, Coombes, Judith, & Nissen, Lisa (2014) A pilot study to assess the appropriateness of prescribing from a collaborative pharmacist prescribing study in a surgical pre admission clinic. Journal of Pharmaceutical Care & Health Systems, 1(3), pp. 1-6.

View at publisher



Current evidence to support non-medical prescribing is predominantly qualitative, with little evaluation of appropriateness. This study aims to evaluate the appropriateness of prescribing, and significance of omissions, from a doctor pharmacist collaborative prescribing model in an elective surgery pre admission clinic (PAC).


A modified version of the Medication Appropriate Index (MAI) was developed, piloted and subsequently used by an expert panel, comprised of a surgeon, anaesthetist, clinical pharmacologist, pharmacist, resident medical officer (RMO) and clinical nurse. The tool was used to rate the appropriateness of prescribing of medications, and the significance of omissions in a 5% sample (N=19) of the total cohort from a randomised, controlled two arm trial of doctor-pharmacist collaborative prescribing.


When reviewer assessments were combined, 32 out of 294 (10.9%) medications assessed for appropriateness in the control arm were classed as inappropriate, compared to 13 of 266 (4.9%) in the intervention arm. Out of 89 regular medications in the control arm, 25 (28%) were omitted from the medication charts, compared to 1 out of 55 (2%) in the intervention arm (p<0.001, fishers exact) On average, 52% of omissions in the control arm were judged to have potential for patient harm or ward inconvenience.


For the appropriateness of prescribing, overall results were similar between arms, as judged by individual panel members. Medication charts in the control arm contained significantly more omissions than in the intervention arm, a number of which were rated by the panel members as having the potential for patient harm or ward inconvenience.

Impact and interest:

Search Google Scholar™

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

153 since deposited on 07 Aug 2014
16 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 74800
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: No
DOI: 10.4172/jpchs.1000110
ISSN: 2376-0419
Subjects: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > PHARMACOLOGY AND PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES (111500) > Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (111502)
Divisions: Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2014 The Author(s)
Copyright Statement: This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.
Deposited On: 07 Aug 2014 22:01
Last Modified: 09 Jul 2017 02:06

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page