Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37409142›Full record

ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2023

Feasibility of a Hospital Peer Review Continuous Quality Improvement Program for Pharmacists' Documentation: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Alexandra Hinse, Sophie Gauthier, Tyler Morissette, Caroline Phuong, Rusaila Shakhtur-Alqawasma, Nancy L Sheehan, Catherine Sicard

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 86% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandra Hinse, PharmD, MSc, is a pharmacist with the Pharmacy Department, Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Quebec.
Sophie Gauthier *, PharmD, MSc, was, at the time of this study, a Pharmacy Resident with the Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec. She is now a Pharmacist with the Pharmacy Department, Hôpital Régional de Saint-Jérôme, Saint-Jérôme, Quebec.
Tyler Morissette *, PharmD, MSc, was, at the time of this study, a Pharmacy Resident with the Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec. He is now a Pharmacist with the Pharmacy Department, Hôpital Charles-Le Moyne, Greenfield Park, Quebec.
Caroline Phuong *, PharmD, MSc, was, at the time of this study, a Pharmacy Resident with the Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec. She is now a Pharmacist with the Pharmacy Department, Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Quebec.
Rusaila Shakhtur-Alqawasma *, PharmD, MSc, was, at the time of this study, a Pharmacy Resident with the Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec. She is now a Pharmacist with the Pharmacy Department, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Quebec.
Nancy L Sheehan, PharmD, MSc, is a Pharmacist with the Pharmacy Department, McGill University Health Centre, and a Clinical Professor with the Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec.
Catherine Sicard, BPharm, MSc, PharmD, BCPPS, is a Pharmacist with the Pharmacy Department, Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Quebec.
Université de Montréal · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CACegep de Saint Jerome · CAMontreal Children's Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Peer review to assess the quality of documentation is essential, as it provides a framework for constructive feedback, using evaluators with similar qualifications to increase acceptability. Objective: To determine the feasibility of implementing a peer review continuous quality improvement program for pharmacists' documentation at the Montreal Children's Hospital. Methods: A prospective, single-centre mixed-methods feasibility study was conducted (from January to June 2021) to evaluate the practicality and acceptability of a peer review program (PRP) for assessing the quality of pharmacists' documentation. A peer review committee of 5 pharmacists evaluated their peers' clinical notes using a standardized assessment tool. Practicality was determined through the time required for administrative and evaluative tasks and the resources needed for each evaluation cycle. Acceptability was determined through pooled quantitative data related to pharmacists' perceived relevance of the PRP, confidence in their peers, and satisfaction with the evaluation process. Qualitative data collected through surveys, a focus group, and semistructured individual interviews helped to further explain the results. Results: A total of 37.4 hours was required to complete both administrative and evaluative tasks in one peer review cycle, which respected the budgeted cut-off for practicality. Acceptability was also achieved, given that more than 80% of survey respondents found the PRP relevant to their practice, were confident in their peers, and were satisfied with the PRP. Qualitative results showed that participants found the PRP to be instructive and that qualitative feedback was preferred over a grade issued as a percentage. Conclusion: This study showed that it is feasible to implement a PRP to assess the quality of pharmacists' documentation. To ensure success, it is key that documentation objectives and department resources be predefined.

Indexed as

documentationpeer reviewpharmacistquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID37409142
PMCPMC10284291
OpenAlexW4383302058

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.