ReviewExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2024
Professional pharmacy Services' outcomes performance measurement: A narrative review.
Review in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Professional pharmacy services are widely recognized for their role in promoting patient health and ensuring optimal medication therapy outcomes. Community pharmacies and pharmacists need to assess professional services' performance at patient level and demonstrate their value to stakeholders. To do so is important to understand which outcome performance indicators are currently being used and how added value is proven. Objective: To identify performance indicators that measure patients' outcomes and demonstrate value of professional pharmacy services. Methods: A narrative review was performed based on a systematic search in Pubmed and Scopus databases since year 2000. Manually search was also conducted in Google Scholar and Google.com. Inclusion criteria followed the PCC mnemonic in which Population is "community pharmacies", Context is "pharmaceutical care, professional pharmaceutical services or pharmaceutical interventions" and Concept is "key performance indicators, or performance measures or clinical indicators". English, Spanish or Portuguese language were accepted. Results: All types of papers were included, adding up to a total of 12 papers. The publication of papers on this subject has increased in the last decade. Outcomes indicators identified were based in different frameworks, mainly linked to quality, and were clearly outlined. Disease and therapy management were the most evaluated services. Indicators were identified across 8 different domains corresponding, predominantly, to outputs rather than outcomes. Measurement is mainly conducted under the auspices of coalitions, alliances, government and payers reflecting their perspectives and based on easy-to-retrieve pharmacy data and information. Conclusions: A paradigm shift is needed, so that performance indicators are based on more appropriate frameworks to measure patient level outcomes and value assignment of professional pharmacy services. By providing robust evidence of the impact of pharmacist interventions on patient outcomes, community pharmacists can advocate for the integration, expansion, and recognition of pharmacist-led services within the broader healthcare system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.