Academic Journal
Key performance indicators for hospital clinical pharmacy services: results of a global Delphi study.
| Τίτλος: | Key performance indicators for hospital clinical pharmacy services: results of a global Delphi study. |
|---|---|
| Συγγραφείς: | Magedanz L; University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil., Galato D; University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil., Fernandez-Llimos F; UCIBIO-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. |
| Συλλογικό Έργο: | Clinical Pharmacy KPI research team |
| Πηγή: | International journal of clinical pharmacy [Int J Clin Pharm] 2026 Aug; Vol. 48 (4), pp. 1489-1499. Date of Electronic Publication: 2026 Apr 01. |
| Τύπος έκδοσης: | Journal Article |
| Γλώσσα: | English |
| Στοιχεία περιοδικού: | Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: Netherlands NLM ID: 101554912 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2210-7711 (Electronic) NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int J Clin Pharm Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Original Publication: Dordrecht : Springer |
| Ιατρικοί όροι (MeSH): | Pharmacy Service, Hospital*/standards , Quality Indicators, Health Care*/standards , Pharmacists*/standards , Delphi Technique*, Humans ; Consensus ; Professional Role |
| Περίληψη: | Introduction: The 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. Aim: This 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. Method: The 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. Results: Of 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. Conclusion: A 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. (© 2026. The Author(s).) |
| Competing Interests: | Declarations. Competing interest: The authors declare no conflict of interests. Consent to participate: All participants had to provide informed consent to be included in the study. Ethics approval: This study was conducted following the Ethical Guidelines for Internet-Mediated Research [22], and reported following DELPHISTAR recommendations [23]. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Brasília Ethics Committee (registration number 6.280.723). |
| References: | Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2024 Apr 10;14:100441. (PMID: 38665264) Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 Jul 22;60(8):4840-52. (PMID: 27246783) Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2016 Mar;23(2):80-85. (PMID: 27019710) Malays J Med Sci. 2019 Jul;26(4):110-121. (PMID: 31496900) BMC Public Health. 2018 Apr 27;18(1):557. (PMID: 29703176) Ann Pharmacother. 2019 May;53(5):471-477. (PMID: 30449133) Int J Clin Pharm. 2018 Dec;40(6):1462-1473. (PMID: 30242587) PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476. (PMID: 21694759) MethodsX. 2021 May 28;8:101401. (PMID: 34430297) Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2018 Mar;25(e1):e21-e28. (PMID: 31157062) J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 May;46(5):423-9. (PMID: 8501467) Int J Clin Pharm. 2024 Jun;46(3):602-613. (PMID: 38570475) Can J Hosp Pharm. 2011 Jan;64(1):55-7. (PMID: 22479031) Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966 Jul;44(3):Suppl:166-206. (PMID: 5338568) Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Sep;96(39):e7795. (PMID: 28953611) Int J Clin Pharm. 2021 Dec;43(6):1660-1682. (PMID: 34165664) Int J Pharm Pract. 2016 May;24(3):209-16. (PMID: 26893010) BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Apr 17;14:177. (PMID: 24742158) Ann Pharmacother. 2015 Jun;49(6):656-69. (PMID: 25780250) Clin Ther. 1993 Nov-Dec;15(6):1121-32; discussion 1120. (PMID: 8111809) Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001 May 1;58(9):784-90. (PMID: 11351918) Can J Hosp Pharm. 2016 Mar-Apr;69(2):149-55. (PMID: 27168637) J Clin Pharm Ther. 2022 Jul;47(7):879-896. (PMID: 35332557) Health Policy. 2020 Oct;124(10):1083-1099. (PMID: 32829927) PLoS One. 2024 Aug 26;19(8):e0304651. (PMID: 39186713) Front Public Health. 2020 Sep 22;8:457. (PMID: 33072683) Healthc Pap. 2019 Dec;18(4):28-35. (PMID: 31901066) J Pharm Policy Pract. 2024 Dec 16;17(1):2431181. (PMID: 39691703) N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 23;363(26):2477-81. (PMID: 21142528) World J Methodol. 2021 Jul 20;11(4):116-129. (PMID: 34322364) JAMA. 1988 Sep 23-30;260(12):1743-8. (PMID: 3045356) |
| Contributed Indexing: | Investigator: A Apornak; B Magennis; CC Triki; CG Anene-Okeke; CJ Beavers; D Doucette; E Pitters; GF Lloyd; G Davidson; H Lopes; I Pawłowska; I Miguens Blanco; J Ng; J Wanigasinghe; J Burman; K Toombs; LF Pinto; L Sturua; L Periañez Parraga; L Nuñez Orozco; LM Tatis Caraballo; L Todd; M Martín Cerezuela; M Theodoridou; M Dorofeeva; ML Canning; M Rahati; M van der Merwe; M Puig-Campmany; N Chirun; NM Acquisto; O Fernandes; O Dalleur; PK King; RS Slavik; S Tomás Vecina; S Roberts; S Shalansky; T Costa; T de Leeuw; V Kapaki; V Donev; WM Semchuk Keywords: Delphi technique; Outcome and process assessment, health care; Pharmacy service, hospital; Quality assurance, health care; Quality indicators, health care |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20260401 Date Completed: 20260714 Latest Revision: 20260813 |
| Update Code: | 20260813 |
| PubMed Central ID: | PMC13368952 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11096-026-02126-y |
| PMID: | 41920497 |
| Βάση Δεδομένων: | MEDLINE |
καταχωρήστε σχόλιο πρώτοι!