Cargando…

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 me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fujita, Kenji, Moles, Rebekah J, Chen, Timothy F
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082479/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020437
_version_ 1783345804262506496
author Fujita, Kenji
Moles, Rebekah J
Chen, Timothy F
author_facet Fujita, Kenji
Moles, Rebekah J
Chen, Timothy F
author_sort Fujita, Kenji
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6082479
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60824792018-08-10 Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review Fujita, Kenji Moles, Rebekah J Chen, Timothy F BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6082479/ /pubmed/30012782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020437 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Fujita, Kenji
Moles, Rebekah J
Chen, Timothy F
Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review
title Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review
title_full Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review
title_fullStr Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review
title_short Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review
title_sort quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082479/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020437
work_keys_str_mv AT fujitakenji qualityindicatorsforresponsibleuseofmedicinesasystematicreview
AT molesrebekahj qualityindicatorsforresponsibleuseofmedicinesasystematicreview
AT chentimothyf qualityindicatorsforresponsibleuseofmedicinesasystematicreview