Developing a dashboard for benchmarking the productivity of a medication therapy management program

Umbreit, Audrey; Holm, Emily; Gander, Kelsey; Davis, Kelsie; Dittrich, Kristina A.; Jandl, Vanda; Odell, Laura; Sweeten, Perry

doi:10.1016/j.japh.2016.09.002

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PIs were not described in the descriptive and retrospective studies [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Other sources only focused on the impacts or level of acceptance of PIs or just show general results of the service [ 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pharmacotherapy Workup proposed that open-ended questions are useful for obtaining subjective experiences on the medication and the disease [ 38 ]. The current review noted that medication review may overlap with the provision of CMM service [ 64 , 87 , 110 , 225 , 226 ]. In essence, however, the medication review service [ 227 ] needs to be more comprehensive in nature and record other patient details [ 228 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comprehensive Medication Management Services with a Holistic Point of View, a Scoping Review

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementing Comprehensive Medication Management (CMM) services uncovered the importance of the totality of the patient’s perspective in this process. The holistic approach takes into account the physical, mental and emotional well-being of individuals, as well as their socioeconomic circumstances. The aim of this study was to characterize the scientific evidence associated with CMM services that included this holistic approach. A scoping review was conducted based on Arksey and O’Malley’s method. Searches were performed in Google Scholar for papers published between 2010 and 2020 in English, Spanish and Portuguese. Study design, health contexts, sample of patients, results obtained, barriers and facilitators, and the integration of a holistic approach were determined. Two hundred and eighteen papers were evaluated, most of which focused on the implementation of this service through prospective observational studies. A minority of studies reported on a holistic approach, a smaller number examined the effect of social determinants of health, the patient’s medication experiences and the pharmacotherapy outcomes from the patient’s perspective. Despite the progress achieved, most of the referents do not yet reflect a broader view of the patient’s life situation and its relationship to pharmacotherapy and the ways in which the pharmacist implements holistic elements to solve or prevent drug-related problems.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive Medication Management Services with a Holistic Point of View, a Scoping Review

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…). In dashboards whose purpose(s) were categorized as solely administrative (n=97), most included clinical end-users (n=74/97, 76.3%); few were used solely by non-clinical staff (n=21/97, 21.6%)[34,37,41,58,62,65,80,89,105,114,130,142,146,159,182,[184][185][186][187][188]; clinical users were almost always included as end-users regardless of why or where the dashboard was being used (Table3, cross tab of purpose x user group in Supplementary Table6).Of dashboards used exclusively in inpatient settings (n=63), most were used for administrative purposes (n=33/63, 52.4%)[22,30,31,37,53,61,71,75,82,86,87,95,98,108,110,116,124,130,131,133,137,142,143,151,170,[189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196], followed by clinical purposes (n=22/63, 34.9%) [23,29,38,46,51,55-57,63,70,78,84,96,102,111,113,125,129,140,197-199]. Prevalent uses for solely inpatient dashboards included performance monitoring (n=30/63, 47.6%)[22,30,31,53,61, 71,75,82,86,95,98,108,110,116,124,130,131,133,142,143,151,176,189-1...…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoping review of dashboards in health care: why, how, and for whom they have been developed, implemented, and evaluated (Preprint)

Helminski,

Sussman,

Pfeiffer

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND While dashboards are frequently used by health systems to monitor and improve performance, little is known about their characteristics and the processes used to incorporate them into practice. OBJECTIVE This scoping review aimed to explore published literature on health care dashboards to summarize why, how, and for whom they have been developed, implemented, and evaluated. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through July 2020. Studies were included if they described the development or evaluation of a health care dashboard with publication since 2015. Clinical setting, purpose (categorized as clinical, administrative, or both), and end-user were extracted for all studies. Data on dashboard development, design characteristics, implementation strategies, and evaluation were extracted only for studies published from 2018-2020. RESULTS Data was extracted for 199 dashboards described in 193 publications. The most common settings in which dashboards were used were inpatient (n=81/199, 40.7%) and outpatient clinics (n=68/199, 34.2%). Most dashboards had ≥2 stated purposes (n=142/199, 71.4%); of these, 97/199 (48.7%) were administrative, 68/199 (34.2%) were clinical, and 31/199 (15.6%) met both criteria. Most dashboards included front-line clinical staff as end-users (n=154/199, 77.4%). In the 118 dashboards published from 2018-2020, half involved end-users in the design process (n=59/118, 50.0%); fewer described formative usability testing (n=26/118, 22.0%) or use of any theory or framework to guide development, implementation, or evaluation (n=24/118, 20.3%). Dashboards tended to be web-based (n=41/118, 34.7%) or embedded directly into the electronic health record (n=17/118, 14.4%). Common implementation strategies used alongside dashboards included education (n=60/118, 50.8%), audit and feedback (n=59/118, 50.0%), and advisory boards (n=54/118, 45.8%). Evaluations of dashboards (n=84/118, 71.2%) were mostly quantitative (n=60/118, 50.8%), or mixed methods, combining dashboard or health record data with qualitative findings (n=18/118, 15.2%). CONCLUSIONS Dashboards in health care have been used in diverse settings, for multiple purposes and varied end users. The complexity of many dashboards – serving many purposes and end users at once – and the frequent expectation that clinicians will use them underscores the importance of systematic design and evaluation to ensure they are having the intended outcomes. Future work is needed to identify best practices for the development, implementation, and evaluation of health care dashboards. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/34894

show abstract

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation Methods for Dashboards in Health Care: Scoping Review

Helminski,

Sussman,

Pfeiffer

et al. 2024

JMIR Med Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Dashboards have become ubiquitous in health care settings, but to achieve their goals, they must be developed, implemented, and evaluated using methods that help ensure they meet the needs of end users and are suited to the barriers and facilitators of the local context. Objective This scoping review aimed to explore published literature on health care dashboards to characterize the methods used to identify factors affecting uptake, strategies used to increase dashboard uptake, and evaluation methods, as well as dashboard characteristics and context. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through July 2020. Studies were included if they described the development or evaluation of a health care dashboard with publication from 2018‐2020. Clinical setting, purpose (categorized as clinical, administrative, or both), end user, design characteristics, methods used to identify factors affecting uptake, strategies to increase uptake, and evaluation methods were extracted. Results From 116 publications, we extracted data for 118 dashboards. Inpatient (45/118, 38.1%) and outpatient (42/118, 35.6%) settings were most common. Most dashboards had ≥2 stated purposes (84/118, 71.2%); of these, 54 of 118 (45.8%) were administrative, 43 of 118 (36.4%) were clinical, and 20 of 118 (16.9%) had both purposes. Most dashboards included frontline clinical staff as end users (97/118, 82.2%). To identify factors affecting dashboard uptake, half involved end users in the design process (59/118, 50%); fewer described formative usability testing (26/118, 22%) or use of any theory or framework to guide development, implementation, or evaluation (24/118, 20.3%). The most common strategies used to increase uptake included education (60/118, 50.8%); audit and feedback (59/118, 50%); and advisory boards (54/118, 45.8%). Evaluations of dashboards (84/118, 71.2%) were mostly quantitative (60/118, 50.8%), with fewer using only qualitative methods (6/118, 5.1%) or a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods (18/118, 15.2%). Conclusions Most dashboards forego steps during development to ensure they suit the needs of end users and the clinical context; qualitative evaluation—which can provide insight into ways to improve dashboard effectiveness—is uncommon. Education and audit and feedback are frequently used to increase uptake. These findings illustrate the need for promulgation of best practices in dashboard development and will be useful to dashboard planners.

show abstract

Developing a dashboard for benchmarking the productivity of a medication therapy management program

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Comprehensive Medication Management Services with a Holistic Point of View, a Scoping Review

Comprehensive Medication Management Services with a Holistic Point of View, a Scoping Review

Scoping review of dashboards in health care: why, how, and for whom they have been developed, implemented, and evaluated (Preprint)

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation Methods for Dashboards in Health Care: Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About