Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38240963›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024

Defining quality indicators, pharmaceutical care bundles and outcomes of clinical pharmacy service delivery using a Delphi consensus approach.

Martin Luke Canning, Michael Barras, Ross McDougall, Stephanie Yerkovich, Ian Coombes, Clair Sullivan, Karen Whitfield

Open access · hybridAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Key performance indicators for pharmaceutical services: A systematic review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024
    Review
  13. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Martin Luke CanningPharmacy Department, The Prince Charles Hospital, Rode Rd, Chermside, QLD, 4032, Australia. Martin.Canning@health.qld.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6216-8728
Michael BarrasPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia.
Ross McDougallPharmacy Department, The Prince Charles Hospital, Rode Rd, Chermside, QLD, 4032, Australia.
Stephanie YerkovichMenzies School of Health Research, Casuarina, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4163-4782
Ian CoombesThe University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Australia.
Clair SullivanThe University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2475-9989
Karen WhitfieldThe University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AUPrince Charles Hospital · AUQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

Queensland Health Health Practitioner Research Scheme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical pharmacy quality indicators are often non-uniform and measure individual activities not linked to outcomes.

aimTo define a consensus agreed pharmaceutical care bundle and patient outcome measures across an entire state health service.

methodA four-round modified-Delphi approach with state Directors of Pharmacy was performed (n = 25). They were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale the relevance and measurability of 32 inpatient clinical pharmacy quality indicators and outcome measures. They also ranked clinical pharmacy activities in order from perceived most to least beneficial. Based upon these results, pharmaceutical care bundles consisting of multiple clinical pharmacy activities were formed, and relevance and measurability assessed.

resultsResponse rate ranged from 40 to 60%. Twenty-six individual clinical pharmacy quality indicators reached consensus. The top ranked clinical pharmacy quality indicator was 'proportion of patients where a pharmacist documents an accurate list of medicines during admission'. There were nine pharmaceutical care bundles formed consisting between 3 and 7 activities. Only one pharmaceutical care bundle reached consensus: medication history, adverse drug reaction/allergy documentation, admission and discharge medication reconciliation, medication review, provision of medicines education and provision of a medication list on discharge. Sixteen outcome measures reached consensus. The top ranked were hospital acquired complications, readmission due to medication misadventure and unplanned readmission within 10 days.

conclusionConsensus has been reached on one pharmaceutical care bundle and sixteen outcomes to monitor clinical pharmacy service delivery. The next step is to measure the extent of pharmaceutical care bundle delivery and the link to patient outcomes.

Indexed as

PharmacyPharmacy Service, HospitalDelphi TechniqueHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsQuality Indicators, Health CarePharmaceutical PreparationsBundleClinical pharmacyConsensusKey performance indicatorMedicines managementOutcomesPharmaceutical carePharmacyQualityQuality indicator

Identifiers

PMID38240963
OpenAlexW4391034823

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.