Dataset Information

Developing key performance indicators for prescription medication systems.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop key performance indicators that evaluate the effectiveness of a prescription medication system.

Methods

A modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to develop key performance indicators (KPIs) for a prescription medication system. A broad list of potential KPIs was compiled. A multidisciplinary group composed of 21 experts rated the potential KPIs. A face-to-face meeting was held following the first rating exercise to discuss each potential KPI individually. The expert panel undertook a final rating of KPIs. The final set of KPIs were those indicators where at least 80 percent of experts rated the indicator highly i.e. rating of ? 7 on a scale from 1 to 9.

Results

292 KPIs were identified from the published literature. After removing duplicates and combining similar indicators 71 KPIs were included. The final ranking resulted in six indicators being ranked 7 or higher by 80% of the respondents and an additional seven indicators being ranked 7 or higher by ?70 but ?80% of respondents. The six selected indicators include four specific disease areas, measure structural and process aspects of health service delivery, and assessed three of the domains of healthcare quality: efficiency, effectiveness, and safety.

Conclusions

These indicators are recommended as a starting point to assess the current performance of prescription medication systems. Consideration should be given to developing indicators in additional disease areas as well as indicators that measure the domains of timeliness and patient-centeredness. Future work should focus on the feasibility of measuring these indicators.

SUBMITTER: Spackman E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6333341 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Developing key performance indicators for prescription medication systems.

Spackman Eldon E Clement Fiona F Allan G Michael GM Bell Chaim M CM Bjerre Lise M LM Blackburn Dave F DF Blais Régis R Hazlewood Glen G Klarenbach Scott S Nicolle Lindsay E LE Persaud Nav N Alessi-Severini Silvia S Tierney Mike M Wijeysundera Harindra C HC Manns Braden B

PloS one 20190115 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To develop key performance indicators that evaluate the effectiveness of a prescription medication system.<h4>Methods</h4>A modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to develop key performance indicators (KPIs) for a prescription medication system. A broad list of potential KPIs was compiled. A multidisciplinary group composed of 21 experts rated the potential KPIs. A face-to-face meeting was held following the first rating exercise to discuss each potential KPI indivi ...[more]

PMID: 30645647

Similar Datasets

Project description:The purpose of this study was to develop a method of performing routine periodical quality controls (QC) of CT systems by automatically analyzing key performance indicators (KPIs), obtainable from images of manufacturers' quality assurance (QA) phantoms. A KPI pertains to a measurable or determinable QC parameter that is influenced by other underlying fundamental QC parameters. The established KPIs are based on relationships between existing QC parameters used in the annual testing program of CT scanners at the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden. The KPIs include positioning, image noise, uniformity, homogeneity, the CT number of water, and the CT number of air. An application (MonitorCT) was developed to automatically evaluate phantom images in terms of the established KPIs. The developed methodology has been used for two years in clinical routine, where CT technologists perform daily scans of the manufacturer's QA phantom and automatically send the images to MonitorCT for KPI evaluation. In the cases where results were out of tolerance, actions could be initiated in less than 10 min. 900 QC scans from two CT scanners have been collected and analyzed over the two-year period that MonitorCT has been active. Two types of errors have been registered in this period: a ring artifact was discovered with the image noise test, and a calibration error was detected multiple times with the CT number test. In both cases, results were outside the tolerances defined for MonitorCT, as well as by the vendor. Automated monitoring of KPIs is a powerful tool that can be used to supplement established QC methodologies. Medical physicists and other professionals concerned with the performance of a CT system will, using such methods, have access to comprehensive data on the current and historical (trend) status of the system such that swift actions can be taken in order to ensure the quality of the CT examinations, patient safety, and minimal disruption of service.

Project description:The aim of this study was to examine the prescribing patterns of medications quantified by the performance measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Current performance measures for AMI are designed to improve quality by quantifying the use of evidence-based treatments. However, these measures only assess medication prescription. Whether patients receive optimal dosing of secondary prevention medications at the time of and after discharge after AMI is unknown.We assessed treatment doses of beta-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) at discharge and 12 months after AMI among 6,748 patients from 31 hospitals enrolled in 2 U.S. registries (2003 to 2008). Prescribed doses were categorized as none, low (<50% target [defined from seminal clinical trials]), moderate (50% to 74% target), or goal (? 75% target). Patients with contraindications were excluded from analyses for that medication.Most eligible patients (>87%) were prescribed some dose of each medication at discharge, although only 1 in 3 patients were prescribed these medications at goal doses. Of patients not discharged on goal doses, up-titration during follow-up occurred infrequently (approximately 25% of patients for each medication). At 12 months, goal doses of beta-blockers, statins, and ACEI/ARBs were achieved in only 12%, 26%, and 32% of eligible patients, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, prescription of goal dose at discharge was strongly associated with being at goal dose at follow-up: beta-blockers, adjusted odds ratio (OR): 6.08 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.70 to 10.01); statins, adjusted OR: 8.22 (95% CI: 6.20 to 10.90); ACEI/ARBs, adjusted OR: 5.80 (95% CI: 2.56 to 13.16); p < 0.001 for each.Although nearly all patients after an AMI are discharged on appropriate secondary prevention medications, dose increases occur infrequently, and most patients are prescribed doses below those with proven efficacy in clinical trials. Integration of dose intensity into performance measures might help improve the use of optimal medical therapy after AMI.

Project description:BackgroundStandardised care pathways tailored to women/couples who experience recurrent miscarriage are needed; however, clinical practice is inconsistent and poorly organised. In this paper, we outline our processes and experiences of developing guideline-based key performance indicators (KPIs) for recurrent miscarriage care with a diverse stakeholder group which will be used to evaluate national services. To date, such exercises have generally only involved clinicians, with the need for greater stakeholder involvement highlighted.MethodsOur study involved six stages: (i) identification and synthesis of recommendations for recurrent miscarriage care through a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines; (ii) a two-round modified e-Delphi survey with stakeholders to develop consensus on recommendations and outcomes; (iii) four virtual meetings to develop this consensus further; (iv) development of a list of candidate KPIs; (v) survey to achieve consensus on the final suite of KPIs and a (vi) virtual meeting to agree on the final set of KPIs. Through participatory methods, participants provided feedback on the process of KPI development.ResultsFrom an initial list of 373 recommendations and 14 outcomes, 110 indicators were prioritised for inclusion in the final suite of KPIs: (i) structure of care (n = 20); (ii) counselling and supportive care (n = 7); (iii) investigations (n = 30); treatment (n = 34); outcomes (n = 19). Participants' feedback on the process comprised three main themes: accessibility, richness in diversity, streamlining the development process.ConclusionsIt is important and feasible to develop guideline-based KPIs with a diverse stakeholder group. One hundred and ten KPIs were prioritised for inclusion in a suite of guideline-based KPIs for recurrent miscarriage care. Insights into our experiences may help others undertaking similar projects, particularly those undertaken in the absence of a clinical guideline and/or involving a range of stakeholders.

Project description:This article presents a performance dataset of 93 Russian universities, collected from 2015 to 2018 and evaluated according to 24 indicators. These data were gathered from materials, published in the process of monitoring the effectiveness of higher education institutions by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, Web of Science (citation-based research analytics tool InCites) and Scopus (citation-based research analytics tool SciVal) databases, and information from international ranking agencies QS, THE, ARWU. The dataset comprises the assessments of university performances according to the most important indicators used in socio-economic studies of comparative analysis of higher education system development levels in different countries: educational, scientific and research, international, financial and economic performance and international public recognition (university positions in leading international rankings). Evaluated universities are grouped pursuant to their missions: Federal Universities (FU), National Research Universities (NRU), Flagship Universities (FlU) and university-participants of the Russian Academic Excellence Project (Project 5-100). The indicators for the comparative analysis are aggregated by the type of activities and analyzed based on the calculation of median values and Displaced Ideal Method. The dataset can be helpful to researchers, university administration, specialists of higher education system, etc. Data processing can be executed using data mining methods, machine learning, and pattern analysis for the development of intellectual structures, applicable for university performance assessment in different educational systems. Presented data allows us to assert that the implementation of targeted support for leading Russian universities has a positive impact on the development of Russian higher education increasing its role on the international academic arena. Leading national research university-participants of the Project 5-100 had the greatest influence on increasing the competitiveness of Russian education in the world.

Project description:BackgroundDigital health interventions offer new methods for delivering healthcare, with the potential to innovate healthcare services. Key performance indicators play a role in the evaluation, measurement, and improvement in healthcare quality and service performance. The aim of this scoping review was to identify current knowledge and evidence surrounding the development of key performance indicators for digital health interventions.MethodsA literature search was conducted across ten key databases: AMED - The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL - Complete, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, EMBASE, EBM Reviews - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews - Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, EBM Reviews - Health Technology Assessment, and IEEE Xplore.ResultsFive references were eligible for the review. Two were articles on original research studies of a specific digital health intervention, and two were overviews of methods for developing digital health interventions (not specific to a single digital health intervention). All the included reports discussed the involvement of stakeholders in developing key performance indicators for digital health interventions. The step of identifying and defining the key performance indicators was completed using various methodologies, but all centred on a form of stakeholder involvement. Potential options for stakeholder involvement for key performance indicator identification include the use of an elicitation framework, a factorial survey approach, or a Delphi study.ConclusionsFew articles were identified, highlighting a significant gap in evidence-based knowledge in this domain. All the included articles discussed the involvement of stakeholders in developing key performance indicators for digital health interventions, which were performed using various methodologies. The articles acknowledged a lack of literature related to key performance indicator development for digital health interventions. To allow comparability between key performance indicator initiatives and facilitate work in the field, further research would be beneficial to develop a common methodology for key performance indicators development for digital health interventions.

Dataset Information

Developing key performance indicators for prescription medication systems.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Developing key performance indicators for prescription medication systems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets