Key result
Pharmacy students using the AT-HARM10 tool achieved moderate agreement (80%, κ=0.60; 95% CI 0.52-0.68) with a multidisciplinary panel in identifying medication-related readmissions.
Why the study?
Identifying medication-related readmissions is time-consuming, and it was unknown whether pharmacy students using published screening tools could accurately identify them.
Does screening by pharmacy students using the AT-HARM10 tool and DRA adjudication guide agree with a multidisciplinary panel in identifying medication-related readmissions?
Comparison
Pharmacy students using AT-HARM10 and DRA tools vs a multidisciplinary panel
Design
Retrospective study with blinded assessors
Authors
Loading...
Supports tool-assisted screening by trainees in retrospective analyses; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Observational (n=366)
Blinded assessors
No
Does screening by pharmacy students using the AT-HARM10 tool and DRA adjudication guide agree with a multidisciplinary panel in identifying medication-related readmissions?
Effect estimate: κ = 0.60 (95% CI 0.52-0.68)
Pharmacy students using standardized tools can achieve moderate agreement with a multidisciplinary panel in identifying medication-related readmissions, potentially serving as a preselection method to save time for healthcare professionals.
Coppes et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Medication-related readmissions (n=366). AT-HARM10 tool and DRA adjudication guide vs. Multidisciplinary panel was evaluated on Agreement in identifying medication-related readmissions (AT-HARM10 tool) (κ = 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.68). Pharmacy students using the AT-HARM10 tool achieved moderate agreement (80%, κ=0.60; 95% CI 0.52-0.68) with a multidisciplinary panel in identifying medication-related readmissions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: