ArticleBMC health services research2024
What are the priorities for improving quality for community pharmacy professional services? Nominal group technique discussions with multiple stakeholders.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- From predefined indicators to a management dashboard for heart failure telemonitoring: a modified nominal group technique approach in Portuguese hospitals.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare systems globally are expanding community pharmacy services to meet patient needs and reduce healthcare costs. In England this includes helping community pharmacies to provide integrated professional services but concerns persist over quality of care. This study aimed to identify priorities from key stakeholders for improving the quality of professional community pharmacy services.
methodsSix homogenous nominal group (NG) discussions (face-to-face and online) involved 36 participants from diverse stakeholder backgrounds. Participants included patients (n = 10), community pharmacists (n = 7), general practitioners, a general practice-based pharmacist (n = 4), community pharmacy service regulators (n = 5), Community Pharmacy England members (n = 4), and Local Pharmaceutical Committee members (n = 6), both responsible for negotiating services. Delbecq's NG technique included silent idea generation, round-robin feedback, discussion, and ranking for consensus building. Discussions were audio-recorded and verbatim transcripts analysed thematically using NVivo12. Emerging themes across all NGDs were analysed by thematic analyses. Individual discrete ranking within each NGD were then combined by summing the mean scores of the categories within each theme.
resultsFive key themes emerged from qualitative analysis across all NGDs: quality service design, sustained funding, integration with the wider healthcare system, positioning community pharmacy as a hub for patient needs, and adequate workforce training, optimising staffing and retention. Participants emphasised the need for long-term commitment to quality service design centred on addressing local patient need, sustained and predictable funding. Community pharmacy staff having some access to patient records for making informed clinical decisions was discussed. Scoring priorities ranked as follows (highest to lowest): ensuring quality service design, sustained funding, integration with healthcare systems, community pharmacy as patient hubs, and workforce training and retention, reflecting different stakeholder priorities in these areas.
conclusionThis study highlighted core priority areas for a framework to improve the quality of community pharmacy professional services within a more responsive and integrated primary care led healthcare system.
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.