Protected professional practice evaluation: A continuous quality-improvement process

被引:7
|
作者
Haines, Stuart T. [1 ]
Ammann, Rhonda R.
Beehrle-Hobbs, Donna
Groppi, Julie A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Sch Pharm, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[2] W Palm Beach VAMC, Serv Pharm, W Palm Beach, FL USA
关键词
Administration; Clinical pharmacists; Clinical pharmacy; Department of Veterans Affairs; Peer review; Quality assurance; CLINICAL-PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT; CARE QUALITY; PHARMACISTS;
D O I
10.2146/ajhp100153
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Purpose. The development, implementation, and evaluation of a protected peer-review process for clinical pharmacists with advanced scopes of practice are described. Summary. A protected practice evaluation committee (PPEC) was created at a Veterans Affairs medical center to formulate policies and procedures for conducting peer reviews. The committee comprises six clinical pharmacists, none of whom hold a supervisory position, and assigns appropriate peers to review and rate clinical pharmacists' case S based on PPEC-developed performance measures. Peers rate the level of pharmacist-provided care by deciding whether most experienced, competent practitioners would have handled the case similarly in all aspects (level 1), might have handled the case differently (level 2), or would have handled the case differently (level 3). Each practitioner receives a report summarizing the findings and recommendations for improvement. The data are protected from legal discovery and shared with management only in aggregate. Of the 250 cases reviewed between January and October 2009, 236 (94.4%) received level 1 care and 14 cases (5.6%) received level 2 care; none received level 3 care. The number of cases judged as receiving level 2 care decreased to 1 by September 2009. Improvements in process indicators, including documentation of medication reconciliation and patient adherence, were noted. A survey of the clinical pharmacists indicated strong support for the review process. Conclusion. Protected practice evaluation engaged clinical pharmacists in a continuous quality-improvement effort, generated data regarding practicewide as well as individual practitioner performance, and encouraged self-reflection. Frontline practitioners agreed that peer review is important for quality-improvement purposes.
引用
收藏
页码:1933 / 1940
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] INCENTIVES FOR CONSERVATION AND QUALITY-IMPROVEMENT BY PUBLIC UTILITIES
    LEWIS, TR
    SAPPINGTON, DEM
    AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 1992, 82 (05): : 1321 - 1340
  • [42] Exploratory data analysis in quality-improvement projects
    de Mast, Jeroen
    Trip, Albert
    JOURNAL OF QUALITY TECHNOLOGY, 2007, 39 (04) : 301 - 311
  • [43] Quality-improvement processes in an oncology pharmacy service
    Lunik, MC
    Peters, BG
    Wilson, AL
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY, 1996, 53 (07) : 757 - 759
  • [44] Addressing Workforce Diversity - A Quality-Improvement Framework
    Rotenstein, Lisa S.
    Reede, Joan Y.
    Jena, Anupam B.
    NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2021, 384 (12): : 1083 - 1086
  • [45] IBM SHARES ITS QUALITY-IMPROVEMENT EXPERIENCE
    CARD, D
    IEEE SOFTWARE, 1992, 9 (05) : 106 - 107
  • [46] Effectiveness of a continuous quality improvement program on colonoscopy practice
    Imperiali, G.
    Minoli, G.
    Meucci, G. M.
    Spinzi, G.
    Strocchi, E.
    Terruzzi, V.
    Radaelli, F.
    ENDOSCOPY, 2007, 39 (04) : 314 - 318
  • [47] Continuous quality improvement and dental practice: A marriage of necessity
    Weintraub, AM
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 127 (07): : 1099 - 1106
  • [48] Evaluating Adherence to Best Practice for Tissue Sampling in Diabetic Foot Surgery: A Quality-Improvement Study
    Proctor, D.
    Shea, J.
    Lewis, S.
    Howard, T.
    Ahmad, M.
    Obuh, O.
    Shalhoub, J.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2023, 110
  • [49] General practice: continuous quality improvement since 1948
    Baker, R
    Roland, M
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2002, 52 : S2 - S3
  • [50] Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions
    Hulscher, MEJL
    Laurant, MGH
    Grol, RPTM
    QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2003, 12 (01): : 40 - 46