Analysis of clinical pharmacists' interventions in a rehabilitation setting

To elucidate the role of clinical pharmacists in rehabilitation programmes by examining the type, severity, medications involved, and the level of acceptance of pharmacists' interventions.

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Qatar Rehabilitation Institute (QRI) in Doha, Qatar. Clinical pharmacists' interventions and their underlying rationales were categorised by the type of intervention using a validated classification system. The severity of these interventions was assessed using the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) Risk Matrix. Linear regression and chi-square analyses were employed to examine the relationships between patient-related and medication-related characteristics and the pharmacist interventions.

A total of 3,807 clinical pharmacists' interventions involving 815 patients were collected and analysed. The majority of patients (n = 501, 61.5%) had three or more interventions. Findings indicated that most interventions were addressing pharmacological strategy (n = 1670, 43.9%) and drug quantity (n = 1166, 30.7%). The most frequently reported intervention subtypes included dose optimisation (n = 749, 19.7%), additional drug therapy (n = 673, 17.7%), and medication discontinuation (n = 476, 12.5%). Cardiovascular agents were involved in 37.1% of the interventions, followed by endocrine medications (17.1%) and centrally acting agents (11.7%). A significant proportion of interventions were deemed to have moderate severity (79.8%). Statistical analysis revealed a positive linear correlation between age and the number of interventions per patient (p < 0.001); with no significant difference in the severity of interventions between adult and elderly patients (p = 0.09).

This study highlights the diverse roles of clinical pharmacists in the rehabilitation field. The unique complexity of rehabilitation patients creates a challenging environment for clinical pharmacists, requiring adherence to fundamental practice principles while customising approaches to address individual patient needs. Further research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on clinically significant outcomes.