制药服务的关键绩效指标:系统性审查

IF 1.8 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Julie Faria Ferreira de Souza , Brígida Dias Fernandes , Inajara Rotta , Marília Berlofa Visacri , Tácio de Mendonça Lima
{"title":"制药服务的关键绩效指标:系统性审查","authors":"Julie Faria Ferreira de Souza ,&nbsp;Brígida Dias Fernandes ,&nbsp;Inajara Rotta ,&nbsp;Marília Berlofa Visacri ,&nbsp;Tácio de Mendonça Lima","doi":"10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Key performance indicators (KPIs) are a set of indicators that improve the quality of services provided by pharmacists. They enable the monitoring and evaluation of result progress and optimize decision-making for stakeholders. Currently, there is no systematic review regarding KPIs for pharmaceutical services.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To identify and assess the quality of KPIs developed for pharmaceutical services.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and LILACS from the inception of the database until February 5th, 2024. Studies that developed a set of KPIs for pharmaceutical services were included. The indicators were evaluated using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Fifteen studies were included. The studies were conducted in different regions, most of which were developed for clinical services in hospitals or ambulatory settings, and used similar domains for the development of KPIs such as medication review, patient safety, and patient counseling. Literature review combined with the Delphi technique was the method most used by the studies, with content validity by inter-rater agreement. Regarding methodological quality, most studies described information on the purpose, definition, and stakeholders' involvement in the set of KPIs. However, little information was observed on the strategy for risk adjustment, instructions for presenting and interpreting the indicator results, the detailed description of the numerator and denominator, evidence scientific, and the feasibility of the set of KPIs. Only one study achieved a high methodological quality in all domains of the AIRE tool.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our findings showed the potential of KPIs to monitor and assess pharmacy practice quality. Future studies should expand KPIs for other settings, explore validity evidence of the existing KPIs, provide detailed descriptions of evidence, formulation, and usage, and test their feasibility in daily practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73003,"journal":{"name":"Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667276624000374/pdfft?md5=782e3cee369a3312f6c0203b904eca2d&pid=1-s2.0-S2667276624000374-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Key performance indicators for pharmaceutical services: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Julie Faria Ferreira de Souza ,&nbsp;Brígida Dias Fernandes ,&nbsp;Inajara Rotta ,&nbsp;Marília Berlofa Visacri ,&nbsp;Tácio de Mendonça Lima\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Key performance indicators (KPIs) are a set of indicators that improve the quality of services provided by pharmacists. They enable the monitoring and evaluation of result progress and optimize decision-making for stakeholders. Currently, there is no systematic review regarding KPIs for pharmaceutical services.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To identify and assess the quality of KPIs developed for pharmaceutical services.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and LILACS from the inception of the database until February 5th, 2024. Studies that developed a set of KPIs for pharmaceutical services were included. The indicators were evaluated using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Fifteen studies were included. The studies were conducted in different regions, most of which were developed for clinical services in hospitals or ambulatory settings, and used similar domains for the development of KPIs such as medication review, patient safety, and patient counseling. Literature review combined with the Delphi technique was the method most used by the studies, with content validity by inter-rater agreement. Regarding methodological quality, most studies described information on the purpose, definition, and stakeholders' involvement in the set of KPIs. However, little information was observed on the strategy for risk adjustment, instructions for presenting and interpreting the indicator results, the detailed description of the numerator and denominator, evidence scientific, and the feasibility of the set of KPIs. Only one study achieved a high methodological quality in all domains of the AIRE tool.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our findings showed the potential of KPIs to monitor and assess pharmacy practice quality. Future studies should expand KPIs for other settings, explore validity evidence of the existing KPIs, provide detailed descriptions of evidence, formulation, and usage, and test their feasibility in daily practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667276624000374/pdfft?md5=782e3cee369a3312f6c0203b904eca2d&pid=1-s2.0-S2667276624000374-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667276624000374\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667276624000374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景关键绩效指标 (KPI) 是一套可提高药剂师服务质量的指标。通过这些指标,可以监测和评估结果进展,优化利益相关者的决策。方法在 PubMed、Scopus、EMBASE 和 LILACS 数据库中进行了系统回顾,回顾时间从数据库建立之初到 2024 年 2 月 5 日。纳入了为制药服务制定一套关键绩效指标的研究。这些指标采用研究与评估指标评估工具(AIRE)进行评估。两名独立评审员负责研究的筛选、数据提取和质量评估。这些研究在不同地区进行,其中大部分是针对医院或门诊环境中的临床服务制定的,并使用类似的领域来制定关键绩效指标,如用药审查、患者安全和患者咨询。文献综述与德尔菲技术相结合是研究中使用最多的方法,其内容效度由评分者之间的一致意见决定。在方法质量方面,大多数研究介绍了关键绩效指标集的目的、定义和利益相关者的参与情况。然而,关于风险调整策略、指标结果的展示和解释说明、分子和分母的详细描述、证据的科学性以及这套关键绩效指标的可行性等方面的信息却很少。只有一项研究在 AIRE 工具的所有领域都达到了较高的方法学质量。未来的研究应扩展适用于其他环境的关键绩效指标,探索现有关键绩效指标的有效性证据,提供有关证据、制定和使用的详细说明,并测试其在日常实践中的可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Key performance indicators for pharmaceutical services: A systematic review

Background

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are a set of indicators that improve the quality of services provided by pharmacists. They enable the monitoring and evaluation of result progress and optimize decision-making for stakeholders. Currently, there is no systematic review regarding KPIs for pharmaceutical services.

Objectives

To identify and assess the quality of KPIs developed for pharmaceutical services.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and LILACS from the inception of the database until February 5th, 2024. Studies that developed a set of KPIs for pharmaceutical services were included. The indicators were evaluated using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment.

Results

Fifteen studies were included. The studies were conducted in different regions, most of which were developed for clinical services in hospitals or ambulatory settings, and used similar domains for the development of KPIs such as medication review, patient safety, and patient counseling. Literature review combined with the Delphi technique was the method most used by the studies, with content validity by inter-rater agreement. Regarding methodological quality, most studies described information on the purpose, definition, and stakeholders' involvement in the set of KPIs. However, little information was observed on the strategy for risk adjustment, instructions for presenting and interpreting the indicator results, the detailed description of the numerator and denominator, evidence scientific, and the feasibility of the set of KPIs. Only one study achieved a high methodological quality in all domains of the AIRE tool.

Conclusion

Our findings showed the potential of KPIs to monitor and assess pharmacy practice quality. Future studies should expand KPIs for other settings, explore validity evidence of the existing KPIs, provide detailed descriptions of evidence, formulation, and usage, and test their feasibility in daily practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
103 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信