制定社区药房设置的质量指标。

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Ann Helen Jakobsen, Noriko Sato, Timothy F Chen, Kenji Fujita, Lars Småbrekke, Kjell H Halvorsen
{"title":"制定社区药房设置的质量指标。","authors":"Ann Helen Jakobsen, Noriko Sato, Timothy F Chen, Kenji Fujita, Lars Småbrekke, Kjell H Halvorsen","doi":"10.1093/ijpp/riaf030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Community pharmacies in Norway offer accessible healthcare services that require monitoring. Relevant and realistic quality indicators (QIs) must be developed to establish standards. This study aimed to establish consensus on healthcare quality measures in a community pharmacy setting by implementing two distinct approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive multi-phase research design was implemented to identify, define, and select potential QIs for community pharmacies. Potential QIs were identified and nominated from workshops, focus groups, and literature. Thirteen panellists were recruited for a modified Delphi study over two rounds. We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) panel median ratings and disagreement index (DI) to assess appropriateness and disagreement and define consensus.</p><p><strong>Key findings: </strong>We identified 192 QIs from workshops, focus groups and literature searches. After duplicates were removed and QIs with similar wording were merged, 137 QIs were nominated for the first Delphi round. The panellists deemed 61 appropriate, two inappropriate and excluded six QIs in the first round. The remaining 68 QIs were assessed in Round 2, where 23 achieved consensus as appropriate without disagreement. After DI was calculated, the number of QIs categorized as appropriate without disagreement after Round 1 and 2 was 34 and 10, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates the use of the RAM combined with the DI to establish consensus on healthcare quality measures, i.e. QIs for community pharmacy services. Our findings indicate that the number of QIs considered acceptable is strongly impacted by the method chosen to handle disagreement in the ratings. Incorporating DI and conventional RAM disagreement calculations reduced the number of QIs deemed acceptable by half.</p>","PeriodicalId":14284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of quality indicators for a community pharmacy setting.\",\"authors\":\"Ann Helen Jakobsen, Noriko Sato, Timothy F Chen, Kenji Fujita, Lars Småbrekke, Kjell H Halvorsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ijpp/riaf030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Community pharmacies in Norway offer accessible healthcare services that require monitoring. Relevant and realistic quality indicators (QIs) must be developed to establish standards. This study aimed to establish consensus on healthcare quality measures in a community pharmacy setting by implementing two distinct approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive multi-phase research design was implemented to identify, define, and select potential QIs for community pharmacies. Potential QIs were identified and nominated from workshops, focus groups, and literature. Thirteen panellists were recruited for a modified Delphi study over two rounds. We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) panel median ratings and disagreement index (DI) to assess appropriateness and disagreement and define consensus.</p><p><strong>Key findings: </strong>We identified 192 QIs from workshops, focus groups and literature searches. After duplicates were removed and QIs with similar wording were merged, 137 QIs were nominated for the first Delphi round. The panellists deemed 61 appropriate, two inappropriate and excluded six QIs in the first round. The remaining 68 QIs were assessed in Round 2, where 23 achieved consensus as appropriate without disagreement. After DI was calculated, the number of QIs categorized as appropriate without disagreement after Round 1 and 2 was 34 and 10, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates the use of the RAM combined with the DI to establish consensus on healthcare quality measures, i.e. QIs for community pharmacy services. Our findings indicate that the number of QIs considered acceptable is strongly impacted by the method chosen to handle disagreement in the ratings. Incorporating DI and conventional RAM disagreement calculations reduced the number of QIs deemed acceptable by half.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riaf030\",\"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":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riaf030","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

目标:挪威的社区药房提供需要监测的无障碍医疗保健服务。必须制定相关和现实的质量指标(QIs)来建立标准。本研究旨在建立共识的医疗保健质量措施,在社区药房设置通过实施两种不同的方法。方法:采用综合多阶段研究设计,对社区药房的潜在质量指标进行识别、定义和选择。从研讨会、焦点小组和文献中确定和提名潜在的质量指标。在两轮改进的德尔菲研究中招募了13名小组成员。我们使用RAND/UCLA适当性方法(RAM)小组中位数评分和分歧指数(DI)来评估适当性和分歧并定义共识。主要发现:我们从研讨会、焦点小组和文献检索中确定了192个QIs。在删除重复的问题和合并措辞相似的问题后,137个问题被提名为第一轮德尔菲问题。小组成员认为61个是合适的,2个是不合适的,并在第一轮中排除了6个qi。剩下的68个qi在第二轮进行了评估,其中23个达成了适当的共识,没有分歧。计算DI后,第1轮和第2轮后被归类为合适且无分歧的QIs数量分别为34和10。结论:本研究表明,使用RAM与DI相结合,以建立卫生保健质量措施的共识,即社区药房服务的质量指标。我们的研究结果表明,被认为可接受的QIs数量受到处理评级分歧的方法的强烈影响。结合DI和传统RAM分歧计算,可接受的QIs数量减少了一半。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of quality indicators for a community pharmacy setting.

Objectives: Community pharmacies in Norway offer accessible healthcare services that require monitoring. Relevant and realistic quality indicators (QIs) must be developed to establish standards. This study aimed to establish consensus on healthcare quality measures in a community pharmacy setting by implementing two distinct approaches.

Methods: A comprehensive multi-phase research design was implemented to identify, define, and select potential QIs for community pharmacies. Potential QIs were identified and nominated from workshops, focus groups, and literature. Thirteen panellists were recruited for a modified Delphi study over two rounds. We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) panel median ratings and disagreement index (DI) to assess appropriateness and disagreement and define consensus.

Key findings: We identified 192 QIs from workshops, focus groups and literature searches. After duplicates were removed and QIs with similar wording were merged, 137 QIs were nominated for the first Delphi round. The panellists deemed 61 appropriate, two inappropriate and excluded six QIs in the first round. The remaining 68 QIs were assessed in Round 2, where 23 achieved consensus as appropriate without disagreement. After DI was calculated, the number of QIs categorized as appropriate without disagreement after Round 1 and 2 was 34 and 10, respectively.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates the use of the RAM combined with the DI to establish consensus on healthcare quality measures, i.e. QIs for community pharmacy services. Our findings indicate that the number of QIs considered acceptable is strongly impacted by the method chosen to handle disagreement in the ratings. Incorporating DI and conventional RAM disagreement calculations reduced the number of QIs deemed acceptable by half.

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
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP) is a Medline-indexed, peer reviewed, international journal. It is one of the leading journals publishing health services research in the context of pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, medicines and medicines management. Regular sections in the journal include, editorials, literature reviews, original research, personal opinion and short communications. Topics covered include: medicines utilisation, medicine management, medicines distribution, supply and administration, pharmaceutical services, professional and patient/lay perspectives, public health (including, e.g. health promotion, needs assessment, health protection) evidence based practice, pharmacy education. Methods include both evaluative and exploratory work including, randomised controlled trials, surveys, epidemiological approaches, case studies, observational studies, and qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. Application of methods drawn from other disciplines e.g. psychology, health economics, morbidity are especially welcome as are developments of new methodologies.
×
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