Mapping quality indicators for pharmacist-led clinical services in community pharmacy: a scoping review

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: The expansion of community pharmacist scopes of practice requires quality definitions and measurements suitable to assess community pharmacist-led clinical services that are distinct from dispensing processes. This review identifies quality measurement tools or individual performance indicators applicable to community pharmacist-led clinical services. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted according to the Arksey & O'Malley framework. A structured search of MEDLINE and EMBASE and grey literature was conducted for eligible records published between 2004 to December 2025 without language restriction. Title and abstract screening and full-text data extraction was independently performed by at least two reviewers. Content analysis was used to summarize the main findings. KEY FINDINGS: Twenty-three articles were included of 1579 total records screened and reviewed. Most studies (n = 17) were conducted in Europe or North America. The six characterized community pharmacist-led clinical services were: (1) medication reviews; (2) appropriate medication use; (3) population-specific care; (4) common or minor ailment prescribing; (5) general community pharmacy practice; and (6) patient satisfaction. Fourteen studies described quality measurement tool development, and nine studies applied indicators to measure quality of care. Publications reported indicators emphasizing process outcomes (n = 23) while fewer reported structure (n = 13) or outcomes (n = 12). Few quality indicator sets addressed all established dimensions of quality. CONCLUSION: Currently available quality indicator sets do not comprehensively assess the various domains of quality for contemporary community pharmacist-led clinical services. Our review highlights conceptual patterns, gaps, and implications for required future indicator development.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.