OBJECTIVE: The aim of this Delphi study was to examine consensus on the appropriateness of the medicines reconciliation (MR) indicators. METHODS: Practising hospital pharmacists in UK hospitals conducting MR in hospital wards were invited to participate in the study. Appropriateness was defined using four criteria: clarity, importance, relevance and usefulness. The modified Delphi technique was selected as a structured method to develop consensus. RAND definition for consensus was used. In the second round, feedback on the first round was provided. The study did not require Research Ethics approval. KEY FINDINGS: Sixty-five hospital pharmacists completed the first round Delphi, and 59 of them completed the second round. Their experience ranged from three to 33 years with an average of 16.6 years. Fifty-five indicators were sent to the panel after the pilot study. Each of the two rounds took approximately 8 weeks to be completed. Forty-one indicators reached consensus to be appropriate. Fourteen indicators did not reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi technique was very effective for enhancing the panel participation as noticed in their responses both in the first and second rounds. Forty-one indicators achieved consensus as being appropriate to evaluate the MR process. These indicators could be used to assess the process and hence improve the quality of the patient care on hospital admission. The indicators need to be used in practice.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this Delphi study was to examine consensus on the appropriateness of the medicines reconciliation (MR) indicators. METHODS: Practising hospital pharmacists in UK hospitals conducting MR in hospital wards were invited to participate in the study. Appropriateness was defined using four criteria: clarity, importance, relevance and usefulness. The modified Delphi technique was selected as a structured method to develop consensus. RAND definition for consensus was used. In the second round, feedback on the first round was provided. The study did not require Research Ethics approval. KEY FINDINGS: Sixty-five hospital pharmacists completed the first round Delphi, and 59 of them completed the second round. Their experience ranged from three to 33 years with an average of 16.6 years. Fifty-five indicators were sent to the panel after the pilot study. Each of the two rounds took approximately 8 weeks to be completed. Forty-one indicators reached consensus to be appropriate. Fourteen indicators did not reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi technique was very effective for enhancing the panel participation as noticed in their responses both in the first and second rounds. Forty-one indicators achieved consensus as being appropriate to evaluate the MR process. These indicators could be used to assess the process and hence improve the quality of the patient care on hospital admission. The indicators need to be used in practice.
Authors: Jordan B Sparks; Mandi L Klamerus; Tanner J Caverly; Sarah E Skurla; Timothy P Hofer; Eve A Kerr; Steven J Bernstein; Laura J Damschroder Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 7.076