ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Key performance indicators for hospital clinical pharmacy services: results of a global Delphi study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe contribution of clinical pharmacy services (CPS) to patient outcomes and system performance is still not consistently measured. Most key performance indicators (KPIs) have been suggested only by pharmacists, without formal piloting or validation, and without benchmarking reference values. KPIs are indicators used to quantify pharmacists' clinical activities and their association with improvements in patient safety, therapeutic outcomes, and healthcare costs. There is a need for a globally informed, multi-stakeholder consensus on a core set of KPIs for hospital clinical pharmacy services that are explicitly outcome-based and suitable for international use.
aimThis study aimed to reach a consensus on a core set of KPIs for clinical pharmacy activities in hospital settings, achieved through a multi-stakeholder consensus process.
methodThe 3-round Delphi technique was used to reach a consensus. Panellists were systematically selected from three groups of stakeholders: 'Clinical Pharmacy KPI Experts', 'Healthcare Systems Assessment Experts', and 'Patient Association Representatives'. The initial set of KPIs was based on themes identified in a previous review study. During the three rounds, the consensus thresholds increased from 60 to 70% and then to 80%. Panellists could suggest new KPIs and propose modifications to those already suggested.
resultsOf the 480 potential experts initially identified, 342 valid email addresses were found, of which 49 (from 25 countries) committed to the Delphi study, including 22 clinical pharmacy experts, 21 patient representatives, and six healthcare systems assessment experts. A total of 43 panellists from 23 different countries completed the third round. Starting with 12 KPIs (plus one added in the first round), the panellists agreed on five KPIs, which were distributed as follows: Three clinical KPIs (adverse drug event rate, medication-related near miss event rate and medication goal achievement rate); one economic KPI (average optimised treatment cost difference); and one humanistic outcome KPI (patient satisfaction survey results). A manual containing the KPI information sheets was created.
conclusionA global panel of stakeholders, including pharmacists, other healthcare professionals, and patient representatives, agreed on a core set of KPIs for hospital-provided CPS. This set comprises five measures covering three types of outcomes: economic, clinical, and humanistic.
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.