ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy
Management of Hospital Formularies in Ontario: Challenges within a Local Health Integration Network.
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Priority-setting for hospital funding of high-cost innovative drugs and therapeutics: A qualitative institutional case study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- P&T Committee Drug Prioritization Criteria: A Tool Developed by a Saudi Health Care System.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpenditures on drugs dispensed and administered to patients in Canadian hospitals have been estimated at $2.4 billion per year. Pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committees play a key role in the evaluation and management of drug therapies in this setting. Hospitals differ with respect to the composition of these committees, their members' expertise, and the processes used for making formulary decisions.
objectivesTo examine the current processes for formulary drug review from the perspective of P&T committees and their individual members, and to examine the needs and preferences of these stakeholders related to evidence review and potential collaborative drug review processes within a large Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) in Ontario.
methodsTwenty-three sites within 10 hospital corporations in LHIN 4 (Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant) were recruited. A 2-part questionnaire was developed and pretested for clarity and comprehensiveness. The institution profile section of the questionnaire was to be completed by pharmacy directors and the P&T section by committee members.
resultsTen pharmacy directors and 28 committee members representing 10 P&T committees responded. A mean of 6.4 new drug requests were reviewed annually by each P&T committee. Across the LHIN, the workload associated with reviewing submissions for new drugs to be added to the formulary represented 0.84 full-time equivalent. The quality of clinical evidence in the drug submissions was rated more favourably than the quality of economic evidence; furthermore, the use of economic evidence was limited by a lack of health economics expertise within the committees. A centralized review process for the LHIN was perceived as beneficial to improve efficiency, the quality of review, and standardization, and also to reduce costs.
conclusionsAcross the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN, considerable time and resources are spent on the review of potential new drugs for addition to the hospitals' formularies. A standardized formulary review process, with greater use of provincial and national drug reviews, would likely benefit all LHINs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.