J De Bie1, N B Kijlstra, B J G Daemen, M L Bouvy. 1. SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Theda Mansholtstraat 5b, Leiden 2331JE, The Netherlands. j.debie@stevenshof.nl
Abstract
AIMS: To develop a national system of quality indicators for community pharmacy care, reported by community pharmacies. METHODS: After preliminary validation, an online consensus study was conducted. Pharmacy practice experts (round 1) and practising pharmacists (round 2) were approached. Face-validity scores for risk of harm and quality of care were obtained, as well as data on feasibility and clarity. To field test the data collection a random sample of 30 community pharmacies reported on the indicators, and were visited by a healthcare inspector to discuss practical and interpretation issues. RESULTS: After preliminary validation of 159 topics, 53 indicators were rated in round 1 by 14 of the 16 experts who were approached. The resulting 48 indicators were rated by 76 pharmacists of the 150 pharmacists who were approached (response 50%). Of the 48 indicators in the second round, 33 (69%) were rated face valid (median relevance score ≥ 7) for risk of harm to patients, while 43 (90%) were rated face valid for quality of care. In the field test the participating pharmacies reported on the resulting set of 44 indicators. This resulted in an adjusted set of 42 indicators. The set contains indicators on patient counselling (6), clinical risk management (10), compounding (7), dispensing (3), monitoring of medication use (11) and quality management (5). CONCLUSIONS: A set of 42 quality indicators was developed for community pharmacy care. It is expected that this will have a positive impact on quality and safety of community pharmacy care in the Netherlands.
AIMS: To develop a national system of quality indicators for community pharmacy care, reported by community pharmacies. METHODS: After preliminary validation, an online consensus study was conducted. Pharmacy practice experts (round 1) and practising pharmacists (round 2) were approached. Face-validity scores for risk of harm and quality of care were obtained, as well as data on feasibility and clarity. To field test the data collection a random sample of 30 community pharmacies reported on the indicators, and were visited by a healthcare inspector to discuss practical and interpretation issues. RESULTS: After preliminary validation of 159 topics, 53 indicators were rated in round 1 by 14 of the 16 experts who were approached. The resulting 48 indicators were rated by 76 pharmacists of the 150 pharmacists who were approached (response 50%). Of the 48 indicators in the second round, 33 (69%) were rated face valid (median relevance score ≥ 7) for risk of harm to patients, while 43 (90%) were rated face valid for quality of care. In the field test the participating pharmacies reported on the resulting set of 44 indicators. This resulted in an adjusted set of 42 indicators. The set contains indicators on patient counselling (6), clinical risk management (10), compounding (7), dispensing (3), monitoring of medication use (11) and quality management (5). CONCLUSIONS: A set of 42 quality indicators was developed for community pharmacy care. It is expected that this will have a positive impact on quality and safety of community pharmacy care in the Netherlands.
Authors: Marziyeh Zare; Leila Zarei; Saba Afifi; Iman Karimzadeh; Mustafa Ghaeminia; Farzad Peiravian; Mohammad Salehi-Marzijarani; Kamran B Lankarani; Payam Peymani Journal: Acta Biomed Date: 2020-09-07
Authors: Martina Teichert; Tim Schoenmakers; Nico Kylstra; Berend Mosk; Marcel L Bouvy; Frans van de Vaart; Peter A G M De Smet; Michel Wensing Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2016-04-23