Key Performance Indicators within a pharmacy department

Joanne Goode, Leeds and Yorkshire Partnership NHS Trust

Background/Introduction: Results:
The pharmacy service decided to measure agreed performance
indicators (KPIs) each month.
Number of external dispensary errors
reported
Aims and Objectives: 15
• Explore the benefits of measuring KPIs Becklin
10
• Identify the limitations of measuring KPIs Mount
5
• Implement service improvements as a result of measuring KPIs Retreat
0
Total
Feb March April May June July

Methods/Design:
The Pharmacy team agreed the KPIs that were to be measured: Number of dispensing errors prevented (near
• Dispensary errors and near misses misses)
• Complaints and compliments received
• Medicines information queries completed 100
• Medicines reconciliations completed within 72 hours 80 Becklin
• Level 2 clinical checks completed 60
Mount
• Number of pharmacy interventions 40
20 Retreat
• Number of patients counselled about their medication 0
• Number of education and training sessions carried out Total
Feb March April May June July
A monthly online survey was designed to enable collection of the
data and staff are sent an email with the previous months results
and a link to the new survey each month. Dispensing, error rates Number of medicines information queries
and medicines information queries were all collected electronically
and these results are collated each month.
completed
80
60
Results: 40 long queries
• Higher than expected dispensary error rates were identified at 20 short answers
some sites – error rates for each site were compared and 0
acceptable levels agreed when compared with national error Feb March April May June July
rates. Action plan in place for dispensary errors.
• Level 2 pharmacy clinical checks have improved over the 6 Percentage of medicines reconciliations
month period. completed within 72 hours
• Medicines reconciliation was not being completed on all 100
inpatient units – this was implemented and nurse training 80
carried out for off site units resulting in improved results. Some 60
sites are consistently achieving 100% and we are working with 40
the others to meet this target. 20
• Good areas of practice were identified with regard to medicines 0
reconciliation and clinical work – some sites are consistently Feb March April May June July
achieving 100%.
Percentage of charts with level 2 pharmacy
• Medicines information data has been shared across sites and
new ways of working explored. Training has been implemented checks carried out
but recording is still poor. 100
80
60
Limitations: 40
• The KPIs measured are a snapshot in time and do not measure
20
performance over the whole month.
0
• KPIs for counselling, education and training and interventions
Feb March April May June July
need to be tightened up to provide more meaningful data.
• Medicines reconciliation completed was shown to improve over
the 6 month period but following an audit the quality of our Number of complaints and compliments
medicines reconciliation was variable. 4
• KPIs are self reported and therefore may be biased. On
implementation of electronic prescribing many of the KPIs will 2 Complaints
be reported electronically. 0 Compliments
• Data was missing for some units some months. Missing data is Feb March April May June July
now reported as a 0% result.

Conclusion:
Measuring what we do as a service has allowed us to review the service we provide as a whole and compare different elements. The standards
set are still being amended and discussed as part of continual improvement through the senior pharmacy team and at each site dispensary and
medicines management meeting.
References:
Doucette D. Should key performance indicators for clinical pharmacy services be mandatory? Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 2011 Jan-Feb; 64(1): 55-56