A qualitative evaluation found the IMPACT tool felt clear and useful, but raised workload and role-fit issues.

Mental health inpatient pharmacy staff judged the IMPACT tool acceptable, clear, and effective for prioritising higher-risk patients. Feedback also exposed friction points, especially for some pharmacy technicians asked to apply clinical criteria outside their usual duties. The result was a refined tool and improved training materials.

Quick summary

• What the study found: Pharmacy staff generally viewed the IMPACT tool as self-explanatory and helpful; iterative feedback led to modifications that later participants accepted.
• Why it matters: A shared, structured prioritisation process can help teams focus time and expertise where risk is highest, instead of relying only on memory or individual judgement.
• What to be careful about: Time burden, paper formatting, and role differences (especially around lab interpretation) may limit uptake; “low risk” patients could receive less attention.

What was found

In the journal article Evaluating acceptability of the Inpatient Mental Health Pharmaceutical Assessment and Care Tool (IMPACT): A multi-site study in the United Kingdom, inpatient pharmacy staff retrospectively applied the tool, completed reflection sheets, and joined focus groups.

Participants described the tool as clear, with practical design features like colour coding and tick boxes. Several said it worked as a reminder of risk indicators that can be missed in busy ward routines.

Acceptability was not uniform. Some pharmacy technicians reported discomfort and difficulty when the tool required clinical tasks not typical in their role, such as interpreting blood tests and reference ranges.

What it means

The core promise is consistency: a structured way to classify risk when time is limited, rather than relying solely on individual judgement. Participants also framed this as an issue of fairness, because each patient is assessed using the same approach.

The tradeoff is workload. Staff noted the tool takes time, but also argued that thorough review takes time regardless and that the tool formalises what good assessment already demands.

There was also an ethical concern: if “green” patients are deprioritised, they may get less pharmacy attention. Any rollout needs safeguards so lower-rated patients do not become invisible.

Where it fits

The study used the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability to organise feedback, covering areas such as comfort using the tool, perceived effort, and whether the approach fits staff values and workflows.

Staff also flagged a real-world systems issue: what counts as “high risk” may vary by site and setting. Some settings might see most patients score as high risk, limiting the tool’s usefulness without tailoring.

How to use it

Training matters. Participants wanted clearer guidance on how to use the tool and where to find required information, especially for lab-related criteria that some staff do not routinely handle.

Teams can also adjust workflow: pharmacy technicians could complete the sections aligned with their tasks, then pass the tool to a pharmacist for clinically heavier components. Another option raised was a simplified technician-focused version with added reference ranges.

Participants broadly advocated digitalisation to streamline prioritisation and documentation. Paper copies were described as hard to read due to small text and impractical to manage.

Limits & what we still don’t know

This was an acceptability evaluation, not a test of clinical impact. The authors noted future work should assess feasibility and impact using mixed methods.

Not all participants returned reflection sheets, with time constraints cited. That pattern itself reinforces a key implementation risk: tools compete with clinical workload.

Closing takeaway

The study suggests the IMPACT tool can be acceptable and workable for inpatient mental health pharmacy teams, especially when refined through early user feedback. Adoption will likely hinge on training, role-sensitive design, and making the tool easy to complete in real clinical systems.

Data in this article is provided by PLOS.

Related Articles

• Climate change harms outdoor workers’ mental health, physical safety, and productivity across 62 studies
• Virtual reality did not significantly change rowing muscle fatigue in trained men during ergometer exercise
• Breast cancer patients valued mental health care but avoided using it, shaped by stigma and access confusion
• Higher health risk boosts public participation and compliance in healthcare safety
• Psoriasis in Malaysia linked to major quality-of-life and mental strain
• LIVEBORN newborn resuscitation feedback proved feasible and usable
• Parents of autistic children reported heavy strain and relied on coping rituals
• When ADHD Care Works, It’s Usually Because the System Finally Does
• When Teachers Become the Front Line for Child Mental Health
• Screening in a Single PE Class: FUNMOVES Brings Early Motor-Skills Checks to Spanish Schools
• Research fatigue was 56.3% in Mosoriot, tied to repeated studies
• Nasal temperature drops during stress, especially social speech stress
• High-flow nasal therapy costs more than low-flow oxygen in COAST
• Self-centered reflection increased sense of agency; selfless reflection decreased it
• Unaffordable or unstable renting links to poorer mental health