Aims To develop a national system of quality indicators for community pharmacy care, reported by community pharmacies.
Methods After preliminary validation, an online consensus study was conducted. Pharmacy practice experts (round 1) and practising pharmacists (round 2) were approached. Face-validity scores for risk of harm and quality of care were obtained, as well as data on feasibility and clarity. To field test the data collection a random sample of 30 community pharmacies reported on the indicators, and were visited by a healthcare inspector to discuss practical and interpretation issues.
Results After preliminary validation of 159 topics, 53 indicators were rated in round 1 by 14 of the 16 experts who were approached. The resulting 48 indicators were rated by 76 pharmacists of the 150 pharmacists who were approached (response 50%). Of the 48 indicators in the second round, 33 (69%) were rated face valid (median relevance score ≥7) for risk of harm to patients, while 43 (90%) were rated face valid for quality of care. In the field test the participating pharmacies reported on the resulting set of 44 indicators. This resulted in an adjusted set of 42 indicators. The set contains indicators on patient counselling (6), clinical risk management (10), compounding (7), dispensing (3), monitoring of medication use (11) and quality management (5).
Conclusions A set of 42 quality indicators was developed for community pharmacy care. It is expected that this will have a positive impact on quality and safety of community pharmacy care in the Netherlands.
- Quality indicators
- community pharmacies
- quality of healthcare
- safety of healthcare
- healthcare quality improvement
- patient safety
- primary care
- quality of care
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.