Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37646963›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024

Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe definition of quality indicators for pharmaceutical care: a systematic literature review and international consensus development.

Kenji Fujita, Kjell H Halvorsen, Noriko Sato, Janja Jazbar, Pilar Modamio, Isabel Waltering, Isabelle De Wulf, Tommy Westerlund, Timothy F Chen, Martina Teichert

Abstract readSystematic ReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Key performance indicators for pharmaceutical services: A systematic review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Kenji FujitaKolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney and the Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia. kenji.fujita@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7876-6004
Kjell H HalvorsenDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsö, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1562-1822
Noriko SatoSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0106-8376
Janja JazbarFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5613-9800
Pilar ModamioClinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Care Unit, Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Technology, and Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3193-6285
Isabel WalteringInstitute for Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, Clinical Pharmacy, University of Muenster, Münster, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5607-8603
Isabelle De WulfAssociation of Belgian Pharmacists, Brussels, Belgium.
Tommy WesterlundDepartment of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health and Society, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1717-9401
Timothy F ChenSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4189-8403
Martina TeichertDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8411-3325

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past 40 years, the tasks of pharmacists have shifted from logistic services to pharmaceutical care (PhC). Despite the increasing importance of measuring quality of care, there is no general definition of Quality Indicators (QIs) to measure PhC. Recognising this, a working group in a European association of PhC researchers, the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE), was established in 2020.

aimThis research aimed to review existing definitions of QIs and develop a definition of QIs for PhC.

methodA two-step procedure was applied. Firstly, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify existing QI definitions that were summarised. Secondly, an expert panel, comprised of 17 international experts from 14 countries, participated in two surveys and a discussion using a modified Delphi technique to develop the definition of QIs for PhC.

resultsA total of 182 QI definitions were identified from 174 articles. Of these, 63 QI definitions (35%) cited one of five references as the source. Sixteen aspects that construct QI definitions were derived from the identified definitions. As a result of the Delphi study, the panel reached an agreement on a one-sentence definition of QIs for PhC: "quality indicators for pharmaceutical care are validated measurement tools to monitor structures, processes or outcomes in the context of care provided by pharmacists".

conclusionBuilding upon existing definition of QIs, an international expert panel developed the PCNE definition of QIs for PhC. This definition is intended for universal use amongst researchers and healthcare providers in PhC.

Indexed as

Pharmaceutical ServicesQuality Indicators, Health CareDelphi TechniqueEuropeHumansConsensusDelphi techniquePharmaceutical careQuality indicatorsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37646963
PMCPMC10830737

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.