20 research outputs found

    Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care in low- and middle-income countries

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: To develop a set of actionable quality indicators for critical care suitable for use in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A list of 84 candidate indicators compiled from a previous literature review and stakeholder recommendations were categorised into three domains (foundation, process, and quality impact). An expert panel (EP) representing stakeholders from critical care and allied specialties in multiple low-, middle-, and high-income countries was convened. In rounds one and two of the Delphi exercise, the EP appraised (Likert scale 1–5) each indicator for validity, feasibility; in round three sensitivity to change, and reliability were additionally appraised. Potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the quality indicators were also reported in this round. Median score and interquartile range (IQR) were used to determine consensus; indicators with consensus disagreement (median < 4, IQR ≤ 1) were removed, and indicators with consensus agreement (median ≥ 4, IQR ≤ 1) or no consensus were retained. In round four, indicators were prioritised based on their ability to impact cost of care to the provider and recipient, staff well-being, patient safety, and patient-centred outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-one experts from 30 countries (n = 45, 63%, representing critical care) selected 57 indicators to assess quality of care in intensive care unit (ICU) in LMICs: 16 foundation, 27 process, and 14 quality impact indicators after round three. Round 4 resulted in 14 prioritised indicators. Fifty-seven respondents reported barriers and facilitators, of which electronic registry-embedded data collection was the biggest perceived facilitator to implementation (n = 54/57, 95%) Concerns over burden of data collection (n = 53/57, 93%) and variations in definition (n = 45/57, 79%) were perceived as the greatest barrier to implementation. CONCLUSION: This consensus exercise provides a common set of indicators to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for critical care populations in LMICs

    Contribution of pharmacy education to pharmaceutical research and development: critical insights from educators

    Full text link
    Aims: This article examines the outputs of pharmaceutical education with the development of the pharmacy profession and how that affects pharmaceutical innovation. It also discusses different models of collaboration between the academic and pharmaceutical industry in order to achieve a healthy collaboration between the stakeholders. Methods: The perspective, experiences and insights of educators from various backgrounds, origin and educational levels were sought regarding the role of pharmacy education in providing pharmaceutical research and development workforce. Results: Many countries around the world are currently undertaking major reforms in pharmacy education due to the changing landscape of health and healthcare delivery. These reforms must be accompanied by robust systems to assure that the quality of educational structures, processes and outcomes will produce competent pharmacy graduates in the future. It is also considered imperative that pharmacy academic institutions should establish collaboration with the drug development units, the pharmaceutical industry and government agencies for sustainability and positive research outcomes. Conclusion: Shortcomings in pharmacy curricula need to be addressed and the authors have proposed the ‘TARGET’ approach for the development of integrated pharmacy curriculum to substantially contribute to pharmaceutical research and development. </jats:sec
    corecore