ArticlePharmacy practice
A key performance indicators redefinition initiative at a school of pharmacy using a modified Delphi consensus technique.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical pharmacy key performance indicators for hospital inpatient setting: a systematic review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Outcomes and Assessment Committee at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy was tasked with refining the school's key performance indicators (KPIs) to improve programmatic assessment by focusing on the most important measures.
methodsInitially, 56 KPIs were tracked, nine of which were university mandated, divided into 10 modules: admissions, community outreach, continuing education, diversity, faculty experience and success, fundraising, graduate program, research and scholarship, staff experience and success, and student experience and success. Using a three-round Delphi consensus technique, KPIs were reviewed by faculty and staff. Each participant responded whether they considered each KPI to be essential or not essential for school quality assessment and improvement. Consensus for the first, second, and third rounds was defined as ≥90%, ≥80%, and ≥75% agreement, respectively.
resultsOf 109 faculty and staff invited, 49 participated in the first round, 51 in the second, and 42 in the third. At the end of the third round, accumulated consensus was achieved for 35 out of 88 (39.8%) KPIs that were considered essential and 3 out of 88 (3.4%) that were considered non-essential. Consensus percentage per module was: 15.4% (2/13) admissions, 28.6% (2/7) community outreach, 33.3% (3/9) continuing education, 27.3% (3/11) diversity, 62.5% (5/8) faculty experience and success, 55.6% (5/9) fundraising, 40% (4/10) graduate program, 33.3% (3/9) research and scholarship, 57.1% (4/7) staff experience and success, and 66.7% (4/6) student experience and success.
conclusionsUltimately, 35 KPIs achieved consensus as essential to measure achievement of benchmarks for the school, which totals 44 KPIs, including nine university mandated KPIs. The process facilitated faculty and staff involvement in KPI selection and achieved improved focus for programmatic assessment.
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.