Clinical pharmacy key performance indicators for hospital inpatient setting: a systematic review

Background Key performance indicators (KPIs) are quantifiable measures used to monitor the quality of health services. Implementation guidelines for clinical pharmacy services (CPS) do not specify KPIs.Aim To assess the quality of the studies that have developed KPIs for CPS in inpatient hospital settings.Method A systematic review was conducted by searching in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, supplemented with citation analyses and grey literature searches, to retrieve studies addressing the development of KPIs in CPS for hospital inpatients. Exclusions comprised drug- or disease-specific studies and those not written in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish. The Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument assessed methodological quality. Domain scores and an overall score were calculated using an equal-weight principle. KPIs were classified into structure, process, and outcome categories. The protocol is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KS2G3.Results We included thirteen studies that collectively developed 225 KPIs. Merely five studies scored over 50% on the AIRE instrument, with domains #3 (scientific evidence) and #4 (formulation and usage) displaying low scores. Among the KPIs, 8.4% were classified as structure, 85.8% as process, and 5.8% as outcome indicators. The overall methodological quality did not exhibit a clear association with a major focus on outcomes. None of the studies provided benchmarking reference values.Conclusion The KPIs formulated for evaluating CPS in hospital settings primarily comprised process measures, predominantly suggested by pharmacists, with inadequate evidence support, lacked piloting or validation, and consequently, were devoid of benchmarking reference values

Responsible self-medication: review of the process of pharmaceutical attendance

This article presents a review, based on a qualitative study, of pharmaceutical orientation in the management of minor illness. Action research methodology was used by a group of faculty members responsible for the community pharmacy internship and by postgraduates in clinical pharmacy, to carry out the study with the objective to present a standard service for this kind of procedure. The interaction with the individual starts with a welcoming reception, at which point the pharmacist should be receptive and show empathy. Subsequently, data from the history of the patient are collected to obtain relevant information. Based on this information, the pharmacist must develop a line of clinical reasoning and make a decision, taking the context of the patient into account. After this analysis, the most appropriate intervention is performed. This intervention could indicate the need for referral to another health professional, the use of a non-pharmacological therapy or the provision of sound advice on medicines available without prescription. The next step is monitoring the patient in order to identify the effectiveness and safety of treatment. The standardization process of pharmaceutical attendance in the management of minor disorders contributes to the rational use of medicines.A reflexão apresentada neste artigo representa um estudo de abordagem qualitativa baseada na pesquisa-ação da prática do atendimento farmacêutico no manejo de transtornos menores, realizada pelo grupo de professores do Estágio em Farmácia Comunitária e por farmacêuticos pós-graduados em Farmácia Clínica, com o objetivo de realizar uma proposta de atendimento padrão para este tipo de procedimento. A interação com o indivíduo é iniciada pelo acolhimento, momento no qual o farmacêutico deve ser receptivo e empático. A seguir, se executa a coleta de dados sobre a história do paciente, para obtenção de informações relevantes. Com base nas informações, o farmacêutico deve desenvolver um raciocínio clínico e tomar uma decisão, levando em consideração o contexto do paciente. Após esta análise é realizada a intervenção mais adequada ou o conjunto dessas que podem ser: procurar outro profissional de saúde, utilizar uma terapia não-farmacológica ou auxiliar na escolha de um medicamento de venda livre. O próximo passo é o acompanhamento do paciente com vistas a identificar a efetividade e segurança do tratamento. A padronização do processo de atendimento farmacêutico no manejo de transtornos menores, contribui para o uso racional de medicamentos

Medication regimen complexity in adults and the elderly in a primary healthcare setting: determination of high and low complexities

Background: The complexity of a medication regimen is related to the multiple characteristics of the prescribed regimen and can negatively influence the health outcomes of patients. Objective: To propose cut-off points in the complexity of pharmacotherapy to distinguish between patients with low and high complexities seen in a primary health care (PHC) setting to enable prioritization of patient management. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study, which included 517 adult and elderly patients, analyzing different cut-off points to define the strata of low and high pharmacotherapy complexities based on percentiles of the population evaluated. Data collection began with the solicitation of prescriptions, followed by a questionnaire that was administered by an interviewer. The complexity of a medication regimen was estimated from the Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI). High complexity pharmacotherapy scores were analyzed from patient profiles, the use of health services, and pharmacotherapy. The criteria for subject inclusion in the sample population were as follows: inhabitant of the area covered by the municipality, 18 years or older, and being prescribed at least one drug during the collection period. Exclusion criteria at the time of collection were the use of any medication whose prescription was not available. All medications were accessed through the Primary Healthcare Service (PHS). Results: The median total pharmacotherapy complexity score was 8.5. High MRCI scores were correlated with age, medications taken with in the Brazilian PHS, having at least one potential drug-related problem, receiving up to eight years of schooling, number of medications and polypharmacy (five or more medicines), number of medical conditions, number of medical appointments, and number of cardiovascular diseases and endocrine metabolic diseases. We suggest different complexity tracks according to age (e.g., adult or elderly) that consider the pharmacotherapy and population coverage characteristics as high complexity limits. For the elderly patients, the tracks were as follows: MRCI≥25.4, MRCI≥20.9, MRCI≥17.5, MRCI≥15.7, MRCI≥14.0, and MRCI≥13.0. For adult patients, the limits of high complexity were MRCI≥25.1; MRCI ≥ 23.8; MRCI≥21.0; MRCI≥17.0; MRCI≥16.5; and MRCI≥15.5. Conclusion: The medication regimen complexity is associated with the patient's illness profile and problems with the use of drugs; therefore, the proposed scores can be useful in prioritizing patients for clinical care by pharmacists and other health professionals

Measurement complexity of adherence to medication

Dayani Galato, Fabiana Schuelter-Trevisol, Anna Paula PiovezanMaster Program in Health Sciences, University of Southern Santa Catarina (Unisul) Tubarão, Santa Catarina, BrazilAdherence to pharmacologic therapy is a major challenge for the rational use of medicines, particularly when it comes to antiretroviral drugs that require adherence to at least 95% of prescribed doses.1 Studies in this area are always important and contribute to medication adherence understanding, even though there is no reference test for measuring this. Recently, an article was published in this journal that proposes the determination of lamivudine plasma concentration to validate patient self-reported adherence to antiretroviral treatment.2 In that study, serum levels obtained after 3 hours of ingestion of the last dose of the drug were compared with patient reports that were classified into different levels of adherence, based on their recall of missed doses in the previous 7 days.It was hypothesized by the authors that the use of a biological marker for drug adherence was extremely important, given the relevance of the topic. However, we would like to draw attention to some points that may determine the success of the use of similar methods for this purpose. The formation of groups with similar anthropometric characteristics is relevant since the dose of lamivudine may have to be changed, depending, for example, on sex, weight, and age.3 Even information considered important by the authors of that study was not provided. There is a need for greater clarity on the eligibility criteria, especially with regard to the clinical stage of the disease, CD4 counts and viral load, associated diseases, and comorbidity, as well as the evaluation of kidney function and other medications used that can affect lamivudine pharmacokinetics.3View original paper by Minzi and colleague