Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25615003›Full record

ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2015

Evaluation of quality indicators for Dutch community pharmacies using a comprehensive assessment framework.

Tim W A Schoenmakers, Martina Teichert, Jozé Braspenning, Lydia Vunderink, Peter A G M De Smet, Michel Wensing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Quality indicators and community pharmacy services: a scoping review.The International journal of pharmacy practice · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Frameworks for Health Care Quality and Disparities in Health Care Quality: A Scoping Review.Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tim W A SchoenmakersRadboud University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. tim.schoenmakers@radboudumc.nl.
Martina Teichert
Jozé Braspenning
Lydia Vunderink
Peter A G M De Smet
Michel Wensing

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2008, the Dutch Health Care Transparency Programme (Zichtbare Zorg) was set up to develop and apply quality indicators (QIs) for health care. These QIs serve a range of purposes and can be categorized into those for internal use--for meeting quality standards and to continuously measure improvement (formative)--and external use--to enable patients and health insurance companies to distinguish between health care providers (summative). In order to assess the validity of QIs, a comprehensive Indicator Assessment Framework (IAF) was developed. This framework specifies the following criteria for validation: content validity, absence of selection bias, absence of measurement bias, and statistical reliability. Because of the intended summative use, the IAF was used for structural assessment of the QIs set for Dutch community pharmacists.

objectiveTo assess the validity of the current set of 52 QIs for community pharmacies using the IAF.

methodsAn expert panel applied the IAF criteria to the set of QIs collected in 1,807 Dutch community pharmacies on their performance in 2011. The QIs were judged as meeting, partly meeting, or not meeting the requirements regarding these criteria. The judgments were evaluated for QI type (structure, process, or outcome) and for predefined domains.

resultsThirteen QIs (25%) were judged as meeting the requirements for all criteria. Among them were 12 structure indicators and 1 process indicator. For process indicators, the criterion for measurement bias poorly met the requirements, and content validity was unsatisfactory for outcome indicators. The 13 overall valid QIs covered 6 out of 10 predefined domains: continuity of care, clinical risk management, compounding, dispensing of medication, management, and quality management.

conclusionsWhen subjecting the QI set for community pharmacies to the requirements of the IAF, only a quarter of the QIs met all requirements. To increase the number of valid process and outcome indicators, meaningful aspects for the outcome of pharmaceutical care have to be defined, and uniform measurement of relevant processes has to be implemented.

Indexed as

Outcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareBiasHumansNetherlandsPharmacies

Identifiers

PMID25615003
PMCPMC10397876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.