Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38570475›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024

Clinical pharmacy key performance indicators for hospital inpatient setting: a systematic review.

Lucas Magedanz, Hiolanda Lêdo Silva, Dayani Galato, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lucas MagedanzPostgraduate Program in Health Sciences and Technologies, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9812-2783
Hiolanda Lêdo SilvaPostgraduate Program in Health Sciences and Technologies, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4835-0064
Dayani GalatoPostgraduate Program in Health Sciences and Technologies, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9295-8018
Fernando Fernandez-LlimosUCIBIO-Applied Molecular Biosciences Unit, i4HB-Institute for Health and Bioeconomy, Laboratory of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. fllimos@ff.up.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8529-9595
Universidade de Brasília · BRUniversidade do Porto · PT

Funding

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior DPG No 0010/2023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKey performance indicators (KPIs) are quantifiable measures used to monitor the quality of health services. Implementation guidelines for clinical pharmacy services (CPS) do not specify KPIs.

aimTo assess the quality of the studies that have developed KPIs for CPS in inpatient hospital settings.

methodA systematic review was conducted by searching in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, supplemented with citation analyses and grey literature searches, to retrieve studies addressing the development of KPIs in CPS for hospital inpatients. Exclusions comprised drug- or disease-specific studies and those not written in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish. The Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument assessed methodological quality. Domain scores and an overall score were calculated using an equal-weight principle. KPIs were classified into structure, process, and outcome categories. The protocol is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KS2G3 .

resultsWe included thirteen studies that collectively developed 225 KPIs. Merely five studies scored over 50% on the AIRE instrument, with domains #3 (scientific evidence) and #4 (formulation and usage) displaying low scores. Among the KPIs, 8.4% were classified as structure, 85.8% as process, and 5.8% as outcome indicators. The overall methodological quality did not exhibit a clear association with a major focus on outcomes. None of the studies provided benchmarking reference values.

conclusionThe KPIs formulated for evaluating CPS in hospital settings primarily comprised process measures, predominantly suggested by pharmacists, with inadequate evidence support, lacked piloting or validation, and consequently, were devoid of benchmarking reference values.

Indexed as

InpatientsPharmacy Service, HospitalQuality Indicators, Health CareHumansHealth care outcome and process assessmentHealth care quality assuranceHealth care quality indicatorsHospital pharmacy serviceSystematic reviews as topic

Identifiers

PMID38570475
PMCPMC11133179
OpenAlexW4393853665

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.