25th Congress: Call for abstracts

Please check the abstract submission instructions below and 
click HERE to submit your abstract

The SC accepts two types of abstracts: scientific abstracts and "Good Practice Initiatives" (GPIs). GPIs comprise hospital pharmacy practice or education initiatives, which may inspire colleagues internationally, but do not necessarily comply with the traditional abstract demands. For further information regarding definition of a GPI, please go here

To check if your program meets the eligibility criteria for being a GPI or an abstract, answer all the following questions:

Table 1: The eligibility criteria for being a GPI or an abstract.


1. Is your abstract relevant for hospital pharmacists?

Yes: Your abstract may be a scientific abstract or a GPI
No: Please do not submit your work to EAHP

2. Does your abstract describe a protocol or plan for a project not yet conducted?

Yes: Please do not submit your work to EAHP
No: Your abstract may be a scientific abstract or a GPI

3. Is your abstract about the development and implementation of a pharmacy practice or a program in pharmacy education?

Yes: Your abstract may be a GPI
No: Your abstract may be a scientific abstract

4. Can other colleagues use your experience as the basis to introduce the same type of improvement in their settings by e.g. observing what you did in your setting?

Yes: Your abstract may be a GPI
No: Your abstract may be a scientific abstract

5. Does your abstract describe a project conducted as a scientific study using e.g. robust methodology?

Yes: Your abstract may be a scientific abstract
No: Your abstract may be a GPI         

For authors interested in submitting a GPI, please go here.

If you want to submit a scientific abstract, please check the instructions below.  


IMPORTANT: When submitting your abstract, please be sure that your hospital server will accept emails from abstract[at]eahp[dot]eu . Otherwise, you will not receive the emails from our system. Alternatively, you may use a personal email address such as gmail, hotmail, etc.

The EAHP Scientific Committee (SC) is looking for contributions with:

  • A high grade of relevance and/or innovation to the European community of Hospital Pharmacists,
  • A high impact on the future of hospital pharmacy practice, or
  • A high relevance regarding practice changes due to the investigated intervention.


We encourage the submission of abstracts from all disciplines of hospital pharmacy or related areas. The major categories and examples of topics are illustrated in the table below. The topics are not meant to represent a complete and exclusive list, but examples only that guide authors to select the most appropriate topic groups during the submission process.

Table 2: Categories for abstract submission with examples.

Section 1: Introductory Statements and Governance    Management theories, human resources, training requirements, financing, resource optimization, staffing, organisation, working environment, medicines management policies, drug & therapeutics committees, communication technology (telepharmacy, eHealth), national standards of hospital pharmacy services, pharmacoeconomics, health technology assessment
Section 2: Selection, Procurement and Distribution   Procurement processes, logistics, storage conditions, ordering systems, drug distribution technology (e.g., bar code scanning, electronic cabinets, dose dispensing), home delivery, supply chain management, medicines shortages, policy for medicines brought into the hospital by patients, preparation conditions, dispensing conditions, distribution conditions, disposal of medicines, medicines formulary systems, drug use evaluations
Section 3: Production and Compounding  Production technology, use of suitable commercially available pharmaceutical equivalents, risk assessment prior to production, formulation, quality control, best practice quality requirements, procedures for reconstitution or mixing of medicines, stability studies
Section 4: Clinical Pharmacy Services Multidisciplinary therapeutic decision-making, quality improvement interventions, adherence, seamless care between and within healthcare settings, monitoring medication changes, service evaluation, service implementation, outcome evaluation, medicines reconciliation, medication history, prescription review, medication management review, medication appropriateness, drug-related problems, patient education, career education, health care professional education, patient knowledge, therapeutic drug monitoring, interactions, clinical pharmacokinetics, drug information and pharmacotherapy, nutrition support
Section 5: Patient Safety and Quality Assurance Medication errors, adverse drug events, pharmacovigilance, medication error reporting, root cause analysis, high-risk medicines, patient safety programmes, risk minimization procedures, computerised decision support, safe transcription steps, accurate recording of allergy etc., quality and safety procedures, safe medicines use (preparation and administration), labelling, quality assurance, traceability, drug efficacy/safety evaluations
Section 6: Education and Research  Development of curricula, participation in European-wide competency frameworks (e.g., for initial post graduate education and training in hospital pharmacy), research methods, publication skills, pharmacy practice research, pharmacoepidemiology, protocols


We kindly invite all applicants to carefully consider the following before submitting your abstract:

  • The prerequisite for a good abstract is a well-conducted study with clear study aims and methodology.
  • The purpose of the study should be understandable and should allow the reader to follow what has been done at a glance.
  • The interventions and relevant outcomes should be clearly defined.
  • The authors are strongly requested, prior to submission, to see what is published in their relevant field and  reflect on the added value of their work (e.g. if they present data of national or even local peculiarities).
  • Before writing the abstract, clarify for yourself what is the new evidence you want to present and consider why colleagues should be interested in your study.


Abstracts must be structured and written in five paragraphs: (1) 
Background and importance, (2) Aim and objectives, (3) Materials and methods, (4) Results, (5) Conclusion and relevance.

This structure of an EAHP congress abstract has to be strictly adhered to. The online abstract submission will guide you through this process. Abstracts are limited to no more than 350 words (or less if you use graphs or tables) and must be typed in English. The online submission system does not allow you to enter abstracts above this limit.

A blinded approach is used during the abstract review process, so it is recommended that the institution name and/or country name are NOT indicated in the abstract title and text. Contact data will not be displayed during the review process.  This process is meant to ensure that the reviews are conducted in the most ethical and professional way possible. 

  • Title: The title of the abstract must be strictly coherent with the data included in the abstract. Do not use abbreviations.
  • Contact data: The name of every author, preceded by initials, and the name of the presenting author underlined and entered as instructed via the online submission process. Omit degrees, titles or institutional appointments. Then, insert the institution, city, country where the study took place, as well as the email address of the presenting author.
  • (1) Background and importance: The background sets the frame of your study. To set the scene you must answer the following questions: What is already known about this topic? what are the unmet needs which brought you to conduct this study? To answer those questions, you have to do a literature search to identify whether other observations in this field are already published. You should present the problem you want to focus on and highlight why the answer to the problem is important.
  • (2) Aim and objectives:  State the aim of the study. This very clear and concise text should state: What did you investigate and among whom?
  • (3) Materials and methods: Describe the method, facilities (e.g. equipment/statistics, models), design, setting and participants and interventions being used. Please describe the intervention and which outcome measures were used, when applicable. If you do a literature review or a meta-analysis you have to give information regarding the data sources and the study selection criteria.
  • (4) Results: Present the necessary data in a way that it is easy to understand. There is no discussion of the results in this part.
  • (5) Conclusion and relevance: Discuss your results and compare to literature data if available. Are other observations in this field already published and relevant to be mentioned? Based on your results, what are the answers to the problem you focused on? What are the new findings? What are the implications for practice and research?
  • References and/or acknowledgements: These may be given at the end of the abstract.

Please click here to download the abstract structure template which can give you an idea of an abstract structure before the online submission. Please note that only submitted online abstracts will be reviewed. 

We advise authors to use scientifically common principles in abstract writing.

  • Abbreviations may be used only if they are defined (spelled out in full text at first mention, followed by abbreviation in parentheses). Only general standard abbreviations for e.g. millilitres, seconds, and moles may be used without explanation.
  • Don't use excessive decimals e.g. a person might weigh 70,237 kg at a given moment, but only 70 kg should be mentioned.
  • References should be limited to a minimum, unless they are important for understanding methods, background or conclusions drawn. References should be added in a special field during the abstract submission, which is optional for use and not mandatory. Comprehensive bibliography can be displayed on the poster.
  • The authors are encouraged to submit well-edited abstracts and avoid submission of negligent work.


  • Please consider the selection of the appropriate topic group before submission and compare with the examples prior to submission (Table 1). The topics are directly related to the EAHP statements.
  • For every abstract there must be 3-5 keywords selected by the authors. These are used for indexing purposes and have to be strictly in line with the content of the abstract.

  • Each abstract is read, assessed and scored independently by two members of the SC and considered from two perspectives: the scientific content and the practical value of the submission.
  • In case of divergence between the two reviewers, the full SC discusses the submission in plenum and comes to a view whether to accept the abstract or not.
  • You will be notified in a timely manner as to the outcomes of the review process. You may be asked to revise your abstract and re-submit it.
  • All accepted abstracts will be allocated a spot for display at the congress.
  • The SC selects outstanding abstracts for poster walks and poster prize competition. Only those abstracts that are considered to have a high grade of relevance, innovation and added value in a well-written form are eligible for winning the poster prize.

  • Particular attention is given to those abstracts that report scientifically valid results with appropriate study methodology giving the type of study design, interventions and outcomes. Outcomes could comprise either direct patient benefit, economical or clinical outcomes, or a combination of these.
  • Quantitative studies should include at least 30 patients.
  • Case Reports of a single or of a few patients will be accepted only if they include original and new data, that is not as yet published in literature. 
  • Case reports of ADRs will only be accepted if they present some kind of causality or probability assessment (e.g. Naranjo algorithm)
  • Everyday clinical practice studies are of interest if effectiveness is reported in an adequately chosen size of study population, which is in line with the prevalence of the disease studied.
  • New drug interactions not already described in the literature are encouraged to be reported but should come with a possible mechanism or explanation.If interventions of improvements processes are reported, please always report baseline values or data regarding the situation prior to the intervention as well. Otherwise comparison is not scientifically valid and therefore of limited value and validity.
  • Abstracts reporting purely lab sciences or associated sciences to pharmacy (e.g. microbiology, biology, chemistry etc.) are only accepted if the implications of these basic study findings to hospital pharmacy practice are made clear by the authors.
  • Drug Usage Evaluation (DUE) will only be considered if data of at least 30 patients are reported.
  • Authors planning to perform and report the results of a DUE are referred to relevant guidelines (e.g. those from American Society of Health-system Pharmacists).

  • This practice is well established in many countries. 
  • This abstract is not relevant to Hospital Pharmacy.  
  • The committee did not understand the abstract either due to English use or other reasons. 
  • Quantitative studies should usually include at least 30 participants 
  • The abstract does not follow the given structure. 
  • The conclusion does not cover the aim of the study. 
  • Insufficient data was included to support your conclusions. 
  • An inappropriate or weak study methodology was used. 
  • The abstract is not presenting a study with a defined aim, a described method to obtain results, presentation of the obtained results and/or a conclusion based on these findings. 
  • The abstract may be better suited as a GPI. Please resubmit using the appropriate format. 
  • Other. 


  • Prior to conducting your study, reflect on the appropriate methodology and the number of patients (e.g. power analysis) that is necessary for this study design. Your study must include at least 30 patients to be accepted.
  • Ask other colleagues who are not involved in the study if the abstract is understandable and your proposed message is conveyed.
  • Consider the coherence of the abstract. If not coherent, please strongly consider rewriting your abstract.
  • Consider the coherence of the abstract. If not coherent, please strongly consider rewriting your abstract.
  • The conclusion should be limited to statements that directly arise from the results presented. General statements without reflection of results or not in line with the aim of the study have to be avoided, as this is a common reason for abstract rejection.
  • The word count has to be adhered to. Be aware, that this is an abstract. The purpose of an abstract is to report clear, concise and relevant scientific results. Additional data, which are not ultimately needed for understanding, can be shown in the final poster.
  • Please avoid formatting of abstracts, don't use bold type, and ensure that at the final checking stage that any special characters or symbols used are displayed correctly.
  • Abstracts reporting vague or unclear interventions and/or irrelevant outcomes will be rejected.


While every effort is made by publishers and editorial board to see that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinions, or statements appear in this Journal, they wish to make it clear that the data and opinions appearing in the articles and advertisements herein are the responsibility of the contributor or advertiser concerned.

Accordingly, the publishers and the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP), the editorial committee and their respective employees, officers and agents, accept no liability whatsoever for the consequences of any such inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement. While every effort is made to ensure that drug doses and other quantities are presented accurately, readers are advised that new methods and techniques involving drug usage, described within this Journal, should only be followed in conjunction with the drug manufacturer's own published literature.

The author is responsible for obtaining the permission and licenses used to complete his/her study. Please note that EAHP cannot be held responsible in case an author disrespects his/her obligation to obtain the permission and licenses. 

Please click here to read the author licence from BMJ.

IMPORTANT: The abstracts that were rejected last year CANNOT BE RESUBMITTED again unless major modifications have been made. Should the authors not follow this rule, they will be banned from the submission process for the following EAHP congresses.

Good luck to all!

The EAHP Scientific Committee

Last update: 10 September 2019