Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27107583›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016

Quality indicators for pharmaceutical care: a comprehensive set with national scores for Dutch community pharmacies.

Martina Teichert, Tim Schoenmakers, Nico Kylstra, Berend Mosk, Marcel L Bouvy, Frans van de Vaart, Peter A G M De Smet, Michel Wensing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Do European pharmacists really have to trespass on medicine?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Martina TeichertDepartment of IQ Healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. martina.teichert@radboudumc.nl.
Tim SchoenmakersDepartment of IQ Healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Nico KylstraHealthcare Inspectorate, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Berend MoskNational Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands.
Marcel L BouvySIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Frans van de VaartRoyal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP), 2514JL, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Peter A G M De SmetDepartment of IQ Healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Michel WensingDepartment of IQ Healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The quality of pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies in the Netherlands has been assessed annually since 2008. The initial set has been further developed with pharmacists and patient organizations, the healthcare inspectorate, the government and health insurance companies. The set over 2012 was the first set of quality indicators for community pharmacies which was validated and supported by all major stakeholders. The aims of this study were to describe the validated set of quality indicators for community pharmacies and to report their scores over 2012. In subanalyses the score development over 5 years was described for those indicators, that have been surveyed before and remained unchanged. Methods Community pharmacists in the Netherlands were invited in 2013 to provide information for the set of 2012. Quality indicators were mapped by categories relevant for pharmaceutical care and defined for structures, processes and dispensing outcomes. Scores for categorically-measured quality indicators were presented as the percentage of pharmacies reporting the presence of a quality aspect. For numerical quality indicators, the mean of all reported scores was expressed. In subanalyses for those indicators that had been questioned previously, scores were collected from earlier measurements for pharmacies providing their scores in 2012. Multilevel analysis was used to assess the consistency of scores within one pharmacy over time by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results For the set in 2012, 1739 Dutch community pharmacies (88 % of the total) provided information for 66 quality indicators in 10 categories. Indicator scores on the presence of quality structures showed relatively high quality levels. Scores for processes and dispensing outcomes were lower. Subanalyses showed that overall indicators scores improved within pharmacies, but this development differed between pharmacies. Conclusions A set of validated quality indicators provided insight into the quality of pharmaceutical care in the Netherlands. The quality of pharmaceutical care improved over time. As of 2012 quality structures were present in at least 80 % of the community pharmacies. Variation in scores on care processes and outcomes between individual pharmacies and over time can initiate future research to better understand and facilitate quality improvement in community pharmacies.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesHumansNetherlandsQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareRetrospective StudiesCommunity pharmaciesPharmaceutical careQuality improvementQuality indicatorsThe Netherlands

Identifiers

PMID27107583
PMCPMC4929158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.