ArticlePharmacoEconomics1993
The formulary decision-making process in a US academic medical centre.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The case for an essential medicines list for Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2016Article
- Reinventing the pharmacy and therapeutics committee.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2012Article
- Reassessing the relevance of pharmacoeconomic analyses in formulary decisions.PharmacoEconomics · 1998Review
- The expanding role of pharmacy and therapeutics committees. The 1990s and beyond.PharmacoEconomics · 1996Review
- The role of pharmacoeconomics in disease management. A pharmaceutical benefit management company perspective.PharmacoEconomics · 1996Article
- Pharmacoeconomics and formulary decision making.PharmacoEconomics · 1996Article
- The formulary decision-making process in a health maintenance organisation setting.PharmacoEconomics · 1994Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article reviews and describes the formulary decision-making process in an academic medical centre. The pharmacy and therapeutics (P & T) committee is the organisational nucleus of the drug use control process in the institutional environment. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (TJUH), a 720-bed academic medical centre in an urban locality in the US, is used as a model representative of how most of these committees function. Survey responses collected from 29 peer academic medical centres are presented to compare and contrast the structure and function of the P & T committee at TJUH with corresponding procedures in other university hospitals in the US. TJUH is typical of the institutions which comprise the University Hospital Consortium (UHC). The P & T committee of TJUH is composed of 29 members, meets once per month for 10 months of the year, and has a network of 13 subcommittees. TJUH has an intermediately controlled (mixed) formulary, and uses both restricted drugs and treatment guidelines. Of the 29 UHC member institutions responding to the survey, the average P & T membership is 18, the average meeting frequency is 11 times per year, and 83% of these committees have a network of subcommittees. None describe their formulary system as open, 86% have a closed formulary and 14% have a mixed formulary system. There is a restricted drug programme in 76% of the institutions, 79% utilise treatment guidelines, 76% practice therapeutic interchange and all employ generic substitution. Specific areas addressed in this review include the history of the formulary system, the structure and function of the P & T committee, types of formularies, cost containment and the formulary decision-making process, the impact of organisational culture on physician decision making, the role of the pharmacy department, the role of pharmaceutical sales representatives and their impact on prescribing habits, the impact of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organisations (JCAHO) Agenda for Change on the formulary process, and future challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10146985What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.