ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Quality indicators for pharmacist follow-up of diabetes mellitus: A RAND-modified Delphi method.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiabetes mellitus is a complex condition with high morbidity which requires a multidisciplinary approach including pharmacist follow-up. Within primary care medicine, quality indicators combined with audit and feedback are described as quality improvement actions which facilitate change. However, since existing guidelines regarding pharmaceutical care for people living with diabetes mellitus are not validated in Belgium, their recommendations cannot be translated into quality indicators without content validation.
aimWe aimed to define a set of validated and pharmaceutical record extractable quality indicators, to evaluate the quality of care provided by Belgian pharmacists to people living with diabetes.
methodWe used a RAND-modified Delphi method. Recommendations from (inter)national guidelines were selected according to the SMART principle. A multidisciplinary Belgian panel (N = 12), consisting of pharmacists, general practitioners, an endocrinologist, a representative of the pharmacists' association, a population manager, a data provider representative, and two diabetes patients, assessed the appropriateness of recommendations for their use as quality indicators. Recommendations received a first preliminary classification after analysis of the median Likert scale scores, prioritization rates, and agreement. Hereafter the recommendations were discussed by the panel in an online consensus meeting. A final validation round resulted in high-potential recommendations which were converted into QIs.
resultsA total of 82 recommendations were presented to the panel, which resulted in a set of 24 high-potential recommendations that were merged and modified into 14 recommendations based on the panel members' advice. Three of these, related to influenza and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine delivery, and dispensing of blood glucose influencing and sugar-containing medication, could be converted into extractable quality indicators.
conclusionThis study defines a set of 14 quality indicators - covering screening, pharmacological treatment and patient education and lifestyle management - to evaluate the quality of care provided by Belgian pharmacists to people living with diabetes. Based on this quality assessment, the necessary improvement actions can be identified, implemented, and evaluated to strive for the most optimal care provision, aligning with evidence-based recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40549248What 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.