Analysis of Pharmacist Interventions in Adult COVID-19 Patients Admitted to a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background: Pharmacists are integral members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team who, with their skills, knowledge, and training, are well positioned to prevent, identify, and manage medication-related issues. Many published articles related to COVID-19 management have highlighted the important role of the pharmacists in assuring the safe, effective, and cost-effective use of medications. During such challenging times of COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in a high demand on medical resources and healthcare providers, pharmacists are well positioned to contribute and add more efforts to the healthcare system to achieve best use of the available resources including medications and providing high quality pharmaceutical care to help the patients and support the healthcare providers. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review included all admitted adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from 1 March 2020 till 30 June 2020. The documented clinical pharmacist interventions were extracted from the EMR and reviewed by multiple clinical pharmacists to identify type, number, frequency, outcome, and physician’s acceptance rate of documented interventions. Results: A total of 484 pharmacist interventions included in the final analysis. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions were the most reported (149, 30.8%) and antibiotics were the most reported class of medication, constituting 31.1% of the total interventions. “Optimized therapy” was the most commonly reported outcome (58.8%). Overall, 50.8% (246) of the interventions were rated as having “moderate” clinical significance using the clinical significance scoring tool. The physicians’ acceptance rate was 94.7%. Conclusion: Pharmacist interventions are associated with improved communication and medication use in admitted adult patients with COVID-19. Clinical pharmacists can play a crucial role in optimizing medication use in patients with COVID-19 through prevention, identification, and resolving existing or potential drug-related problems.

Peer review declaration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: By email received from the organizing and editorial committee of the conference. The correspondence authors make the submission by email. • Number of submissions received: 22 • Number of submissions sent for review: 22 • Number of submissions accepted: 20 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received × 100): 91.91% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews per paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 11 • Any additional info on review process: All papers are plagiarism checked by a plagiarism software • Contact person for queries: Ely Dannier V. NiNiño Foundation of Researchers in Science and Technology of Materials (FORISTOM)

Peer review declaration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: Open Acces (Confbay) • Number of submissions received: 48 • Number of submissions sent for review: 48 • Number of submissions accepted: 30 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62,50 • Average number of reviews per paper: 5,6 • Total number of reviewers involved: 17 • Any additional info on review process: The peer-review assessment process is carried out with 5 criteria, namely - Relevant to the conference, - Originality of Work, - Suitability of Research Methodology, - Novelty of Findings, - Contribution to Research Advancement and Policy. Each criterion has a value range of 1-5 and a weight value of 4 for each value unit so that the total value of the overall criteria when added up is a maximum of 100. The minimum criteria for accepted manuscripts is a minimum of 40 points. If below that point, the manuscript will be rejected. • Contact person for queries: [email protected] List of Appendix are available in the pdf.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: All the manuscripts received form the authors were sent to the reviewers. Each manuscript was reviewed by one reviewer and re-checked by editor. All comments were sent back to the authors to let them make all corrections. The revised versions of manuscripts were checked and approved by editors. • Number of submissions received: 15 • Number of submissions sent for review: 15 • Number of submissions accepted:11 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100):73.3 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1 • Total number of reviewers involved:10 • Any additional info on review process: Reviewers considered manuscripts in accordance with: 1) Technical Criteria: scientific rigour, accuracy, correctness of selected methodology. 2) Quality Criteria: originality and novelty, clarity of motivation and results importance. 3) Presentation Criteria: clarity of expression, readability and completeness of presentation, quality of all presented data and figures. • Contact person for queries: Name: Sergey Dubinskiy Email: [email protected]

Peer review declaration

The Organiser and/or the Editor(s) are required to declare details about their peer review processes. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind Double-anonymous: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? The submission will first be reviewed for its topic and length, then go through an originality check. The peer-review process will begin soon after the paper is found to be qualified. The paper will be sent to have a double-blind peer review by 2 reviewers. They will judge the paper based on the theme, coverage, innovation, integrity, depth, and language. One of the final acceptance suggestions including: Accept, Accept with Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject will be given. Articles can be resubmitted after revision except receiving Reject. • Conference submission management system: https://registration.confmcee.org/ • Number of submissions received: 179 • Number of submissions sent for review: 179 • Number of submissions accepted: 64 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received × 100): 35.8% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process (eg Plagiarism check system): Plagiarism check system: iThenticate • Contact person for queries (Full name, affiliation, institutional email address) Han Gao, [email protected]

Peer review decleration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single blind • Conference submission management system: By email received from the organizing and editorial committee of the conference. The correspondence authors make the submission by email. • Number of submissions received: 17 • Number of submissions sent for review: 17 • Number of submissions accepted: 11 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received × 100): 64.71% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews per paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 8 • Any additional info on review process: All papers are plagiarism checked by Turnitin software • Contact person for queries: Ely Dannier V. Niño Foundation of Researchers in Science and Technology of Materials (FORISTOM) Email:[email protected]

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind The single-blind peer-review method was used for the peer-review process. • Conference submission management system: The papers are emailed to the Secretariat and managed internally. • Number of submissions received: 21 • Number of submissions sent for review: 21 • Number of submissions accepted: 17 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received × 100): 81% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 26 • Any additional info on review process: List of Secretariat stage, Scientific Committee stage, Adjudicator are available in this pdf.

Peer review declaration

On the following page you will find the declaration form. • Please answer each question. • You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files. • The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind (please describe) Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors • Conference submission management system: Via email messages between editor and authors and editor and reviewers. • Number of submissions received: 18 • Number of submissions sent for review: 18 • Number of submissions accepted:18 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100):100 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.11 • Total number of reviewers involved:20 • Any additional info on review process: The following review criteria were suggested: • Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? • Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? • Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? • Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)? • Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used? • Are the number and quality of references appropriate? • Contact person for queries: Name : Julian Gröbner Affiliation: Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center (PMOD/WRC), Davos Dorf, Switzerland. Email :[email protected]

Peer review declaration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind There were total 229 submissions, and only 197 papers have been send to the reviewers. The rest of papers were out of the scopes. All the accepted papers have been submitted to strict peer-review by 2-3 expert referees. • Conference submission management system: http://www.chairin.cn/login?conf=msee2021 • Number of submissions received: 229 • Number of submissions sent for review: 197 (submitted for publication) • Number of submissions accepted: 96 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 41% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 98 • Any additional info on review process: Reviewers will be asked to provide numerical ratings for the submissions on a scale from 1-5 on criteria such as relevance, reviewer’s confidence, technical soundness, originality of the presented work, paper organization, overall evaluation. In addition, reviewers will be asked to provide 2 sets of comments for each submission they review: (1) Comments for the Authors (2) Comments for the Technical Program Committee. • Contact person for queries: Ms Kun Zhang, Email: [email protected], Tel: 18163305570