The practice of documenting pharmacists’ interventions (PIs) has been endorsed by many hospital pharmacists’ societies and organizations worldwide. Current systems for recording PIs have been developed to generate data on better patient and healthcare outcomes, but harmonization and transferability are apparently minimal. The present work aims to provide a descriptive and comprehensive overview of the currently utilized PIs documentation and classification (D/C) tools contributing to increased evidence systematization. A systematic literature search was conducted in PUBMED, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL. Studies from 2008, after the release of the Basel Statements, were included if interventions were made by the hospital or clinical pharmacists in a global hospital setting. Publications quality assessment was accomplished using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A total of 26 studies were included. Three studies did not refer to the D/C method, 10 used an in-house developed D/C method, seven used externally developed D/C tools and six studies described method validation or translation. Evidence confirmed that most of the D/C systems are designed in-house, but external development and validation of PI systems to be used in hospital practice is gradually increasing. Reports on validated PIs D/C tools that are being used in hospital clinical practice are limited, including countries with advanced hospital pharmacy practice. Unmet needs and gaps in practice were identified. Further research should be conducted to understand why using validated D/C methods is not a disseminated practice, knowing patients’ and organizational advantages.

Aim. To investigate the impact of pharmacists’ presence in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) on medication usage. Methods. The study followed a retrospective cohort design, with a sample of patients aged ≥ 65 years old admitted to 3 LTCFs over 30 months. Data on age, gender, type of stay, presence/absence of pharmacist and medication at admission and discharge were obtained for study patients. Variations in the number of medicines (NoM), anticholinergic burden (ACB), and potentially inappropriate medication (PIMs), at admission and discharge, were assessed as outcome variables. Anticholinergic burden and PIMs were identified using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale and the EU(7)-PIM List, respectively. One-sample t-tests were applied to compare outcome variables’ mean values at admission and discharge. A 4-way ANOVA was employed to test the association between background and outcome variables. Partial Eta squared (η2) was used to measure the effect size. Results. The 3 LTCFs assisted 1643 patients during the study period, of which 1366 were included in data analysis. Only one LTCF had pharmacy services. All outcome variables showed a statistically significant increase at discharge compared with admission. Pharmacist’s presence was statistically significant at improving the NoM (p<0.001) and ACB score (p<0.001), while no statistically significant value was reached on PIMs (p = 0.642). Small effect size values were reached for pharmacist impact on the NoM and ACB score (η2 = 0.021, η2 = 0.011, respectively). Conclusion. The present findings suggest that pharmacists’ presence positively impacts the use of medications implicated in adverse health outcomes in LTC patients.