Practice audit, 412 residents, five homes

Pharmacy research poster example

A medication review produces a document, and a document is not a change. This board follows every recommendation a pharmacist made across five aged care homes through to a 90 day chart check, with the four headline numbers running as a strip under the title.

Create a poster with OneCraftA0 Portrait, printed at 841 by 1189 millimetres

The whole board

The poster at full size, exactly as it prints. Every number, citation and caption on it was written for this example, so the layout is being judged on real content.

KU
Pharmacist medication reviews in five aged care homes: 1,873 recommendations and what happened to them
J. Fairweather ¹, R. Osei-Bonsu ¹, M. Castellano ²
1 School of Pharmacy, Kelvedon University · 2 Clinical Services, Marrawong Aged Care Group
412
residents reviewed
Every permanent resident in five homes over 12 months
1,873
recommendations made
A mean of 4.5 for each resident reviewed
61%
accepted by the prescriber
1,139 of 1,873, checked at 90 days
2.1
medicines stopped per resident
429 accepted stops across 204 of the 412 residents
ABSTRACT
Medication review in aged care is funded, recommended and widely done, and what the prescriber does afterwards is rarely counted. This audit followed every recommendation a pharmacist made in five homes over 12 months to a 90 day check. All 412 permanent residents were reviewed and 1,873 recommendations logged: 704 to stop a medicine, 512 to reduce a dose, 388 to change agent and 269 to monitor something. At 90 days 1,139 had been acted on, which is 61 per cent. Acceptance ran from 57 to 64 per cent across the five homes. Stops accounted for 429 of the accepted recommendations, and those fell on 204 residents at a mean of 2.1 medicines each.
INTRODUCTION
A medication review produces a document, and a document is not a change. The pharmacist writes the recommendation, the general practitioner decides whether to act on it, and the two events are separated by a visit, a phone call and often a family conversation. Reviews are usually reported by how many were done and what they found, which measures the pharmacist and not the outcome. The gap between the two is where the argument about funding actually sits, because a service that produces 1,873 recommendations and changes 200 medicines is a different proposition from one that changes 1,100. This audit was designed to follow every recommendation to a decision rather than to describe the reviews, and to report the homes separately so that an average does not hide a home where almost nothing was acted on.
METHODS
Setting. Five residential aged care homes in one group, 412 permanent residents in total, each home served by between two and six visiting general practitioners.
Review. One accredited pharmacist reviewed every resident once over the 12 months, working from the medication chart, the pathology file and a conversation with the nurse in charge.
Recording. Every recommendation was logged with its type, the medicine, the reason and the date sent, before any prescriber response was known, so the denominator cannot drift.
Follow up. Each recommendation was checked against the medication chart at 90 days and coded as accepted, declined or no response, with the chart taken as the record of what happened.
Analysis. Acceptance reported for each home and for each recommendation type, with stops counted per resident so a resident with six stops does not read as six residents.
REFERENCES
1.Aldridge, P. and Mwangi, S. (2024) Prescriber response to pharmacist recommendations in residential care. Journal of Aged Care Pharmacy, 19(4), 288 to 311.
2.Renwick, T. (2025) Counting deprescribing: residents, medicines and the denominator problem. Practice Audit Review, 13(2), 61 to 84.
3.Castellano, M. (2026) Ninety day chart checks as an outcome measure. Kelvedon Pharmacy Working Paper 2026-05.
StopReduceChangeMonitor0200400600800
Figure 1. The 1,873 recommendations by type: stop, reduce the dose, change agent, monitor.
Source: pharmacist review log, five homes, 12 months.
RESULTS
Acceptance by home, in residents, recommendations and the share acted on at 90 days: home A 118 residents, 528 recommendations, 64 per cent; home B 96 residents, 431 recommendations, 59 per cent; home C 84 residents, 392 recommendations, 63 per cent; home D 62 residents, 288 recommendations, 57 per cent; home E 52 residents, 234 recommendations, 58 per cent. Stops were accepted at 61 per cent and monitoring recommendations at 74 per cent, while a change of agent was accepted least often at 49 per cent. Sixty one per cent of 1,873 recommendations were acted on within 90 days, acceptance varied more by recommendation type than by home, and the accepted stops fell on half the residents at a mean of 2.1 medicines each. Across all 412 residents those same stops average 1.0.
DISCUSSION
Three findings are worth taking away from a board like this. The first is that the type of recommendation predicts acceptance better than the home does, which points at the prescriber decision rather than at local culture. The second is that a request to monitor is easy to agree to and hard to verify, so a high acceptance rate on monitoring should not be read as a win. The third is the denominator problem: 2.1 medicines stopped per resident is true of the 204 residents who had a stop accepted, and across all 412 residents the figure is 1.0. A poster that quotes the first number without the second is describing half the service.
Key finding
Sixty one per cent of 1,873 recommendations were acted on within 90 days, and the accepted stops removed a mean of 2.1 medicines from half the residents.
1,139 of 1,873 recommendations acted on at 90 days
Acceptance by home ran from 57 to 64 per cent
Monitoring accepted most at 74 per cent, agent change least at 49
429 accepted stops fell on 204 of the 412 residents

Block by block

What each block on the board is for, in the order a reader walks it.

Title band and three authors
The title states the setting and the count of recommendations, which is what a pharmacy audience scans for. Three authors sit over two affiliations.
The four number strip
Four stat blocks across the width of the board: residents reviewed, recommendations made, the share accepted at 90 days, and medicines stopped per resident. Each carries its denominator in a detail line rather than beside it.
Abstract
The whole audit in one block: every permanent resident in five homes, the four recommendation types with their counts, the 1,139 acted on at 90 days, and the spread of acceptance across the homes.
Why count the follow up
The introduction block makes the argument the audit exists to test: reviews are usually reported by how many were done, which measures the pharmacist and not the outcome, and the funding argument sits in the gap between the two.
Methods as a labelled protocol
Five labelled entries: the five homes and their prescribers, how the reviews were done, how recommendations were logged before any response was known, the 90 day chart check, and how stops were counted per resident.
Figure 1, recommendations by type
The 1,873 recommendations split into stop, reduce, change and monitor, as four bars that sum to the total in the strip above. Four short category labels keep the tick row clear of the legend band.
Results by home
Five homes with their residents, recommendations and acceptance rate, written into the results block because this layout has no table. The seven point spread across homes is smaller than the spread by recommendation type.
Discussion, conclusions and references
Three findings worth taking away, including the warning that a high acceptance rate on monitoring is easy to agree to and hard to verify. Four checked points and three numbered references close the board.

What makes this board work

The strip answers the question in four numbers

412 residents, 1,873 recommendations, 61 per cent accepted and 2.1 medicines stopped per resident sit in a row under the title. A reader who walks past has the whole audit, and a reader who stops gets the denominators underneath each one.

The denominator problem is named on the board

The discussion block says outright that 2.1 medicines per resident is true of the 204 residents who had a stop accepted and that the figure across all 412 is 1.0. Most audit posters quote the first number alone.

Acceptance is broken down twice

By home in the results block, from 57 to 64 per cent, and by recommendation type in the discussion, from 49 per cent for a change of agent to 74 for monitoring. That second split is the finding, and it would be invisible in a single average.

Questions people ask

What goes on a pharmacy practice research poster?

The setting and how many people were reviewed, the intervention, what was recommended and in what categories, what happened to the recommendations, and the denominators behind every rate. An audit that reports recommendations made without reporting what prescribers did with them answers half the question.

How do you avoid a misleading rate on a poster?

Put the denominator in the detail line of every stat block, as this board does four times. Two point one medicines stopped per resident is true of 204 residents, not of all 412, and the discussion block says so. A rate with no denominator is the most common fault on an audit board.

Is a stat strip better than a stat block in a column?

It depends on how many headline numbers you have. Four across the top works when each is independent and short. Twenty seven of the forty poster designs carry a stat block of some kind, and the count varies from one to four, so pick the layout for the numbers you actually have.

Can I use a donut chart on a research poster?

A figure block draws in the kind its design declares, and ten kinds exist across the forty designs, including pie, donut, waterfall and waffle. This design declares vertical bars, so the four recommendation types are bars. Check the declared kind before you plan a chart shape.

How much text should an audit poster carry?

Enough that every block is full without padding. Empty space in a section block reads as an unfinished study, and text shrunk to fit a block that is too small reads worse. Write to the block, then cut the sentence that repeats the abstract rather than the one that carries a number.

What does an A0 poster cost to generate?

A poster generation is billed at twice a flyer generation. The board here was not generated: it was built block by block in the builder, which is the honest way to show a layout carrying real content rather than sample copy.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make one like this

Other poster examples

Nutrition research poster example

A dietetics audit poster is read for two things: what the method could actually measure, and which component of the diet is missing. This A0 landscape board photographs 2,400 school lunches across 20 schools, scores each against a guideline, and reports vegetables as the component that fails everywhere.

Midwifery research poster example

A midwifery audit poster has to show four outcomes at once without turning into a table nobody reads. This board plots induction, epidural, breastfeeding and caesarean side by side for two models of care across 1,860 matched Australian births, then prints the counts behind every percentage in the results block.

Ecology research poster example

An ecology poster is usually read for two things: what was found where, and whether the sampling was good enough to believe it. This board answers both for an acoustic survey of six frog species at 30 wetlands across two wet seasons, with the species counts written as one ordered results block, the grazing comparison in a figure and the seasonal means in a comparison bar block.

Want the steps in the builder? Read Add charts and diagrams, then choose the template, theme and size. For everything this generator can do, see the poster maker.

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .