Development of Quality Indicators to Assess Oral Anticoagulant Management in Community Pharmacies for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Development and consensus testing of quality indicators for geriatric pharmacotherapy in primary care using a modified Delphi study

Background Polypharmacy is associated with an increased risk of adverse drug events in older people. Although national guidance on geriatric pharmacotherapy exists in Japan, tools to routinely monitor the quality of care provided by community pharmacists are lacking. Aim To develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) to measure the quality of care provided by community pharmacists in improving geriatric pharmacotherapy in primary care in Japan, using a modified Delphi study. Method The development of QIs for the Japanese community pharmacy context followed a two-step process: national guidance review and consensus testing using a modified Delphi study. The latter involved two rounds of rating with a face-to-face meeting between the rounds. Ten experts in geriatric pharmacotherapy in primary care were recruited for the panel discussion. QIs were mapped to three key taxonomies and frameworks: the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system, problems and causes of drug-related problems (DRPs) taxonomy and Donabedian's framework. Results A total of 134 QIs for geriatric pharmacotherapy were developed. This QI set included 111 medicine specific indicators, covering medicines in 243 third-level ATC classifications. QIs were classified into the problem of treatment safety (80%) and causes of drug selection (38%) based on validated classification for DRPs. In Donabedian's framework, most QIs (82%) were process indicators. There were no structure indicators. Conclusion A set of 134 QIs for geriatric pharmacotherapy was rigorously developed. Measurement properties of these QIs will be evaluated for feasibility, applicability, room for improvement, sensitivity to change, predictive validity, acceptability and implementation issues in a subsequent study.

Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

All healthcare systems require valid ways to evaluate service delivery. The objective of this study was to identify existing content validated quality indicators (QIs) for responsible use of medicines (RUM) and classify them using multiple frameworks to identify gaps in current quality measurements.

DESIGN

Systematic review without meta-analysis.

SETTING

All care settings.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, MEDLINE, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2018. An internet search was also conducted. Articles were included if they described medication-related QIs developed using consensus methods. Government agency websites listing QIs for RUM were also included.

ANALYSIS

Several multidimensional frameworks were selected to assess the scope of QI coverage. These included Donabedian's framework (structure, process and outcome), the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system and a validated classification for causes of drug-related problems (c-DRPs; drug selection, drug form, dose selection, treatment duration, drug use process, logistics, monitoring, adverse drug reactions and others).

RESULTS

2431 content validated QIs were identified from 131 articles and 5 websites. Using Donabedian's framework, the majority of QIs were process indicators. Based on the ATC code, the largest number of QIs pertained to medicines for nervous system (ATC code: N), followed by anti-infectives for systemic use (J) and cardiovascular system (C). The most common c-DRPs pertained to 'drug selection', followed by 'monitoring' and 'drug use process'.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first systematic review classifying QIs for RUM using multiple frameworks. The list of the identified QIs can be used as a database for evaluating the achievement of RUM. Although many QIs were identified, this approach allowed for the identification of gaps in quality measurement of RUM. In order to more effectively evaluate the extent to which RUM has been achieved, further development of QIs may be required.