Development of Ambulatory Oncology Clinical Pharmacy Key Performance Indicators Using a Modified Delphi Consensus Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop evidence-based ambulatory oncology clinical pharmacy key performance indicators (AOcpKPIs). METHODS: A systematic, modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on AOcpKPIs. Following an environmental scan of current oncology pharmacy practices across Canada, a literature review identified critical activities linked to patient-centered outcomes. A panel of oncology pharmacists engaged in three Delphi rounds and a virtual live meeting, assessing and refining candidate AOcpKPIs on the basis of predefined criteria. A total of 17 candidate AOcpKPIs were evaluated. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 14 AOcpKPIs. These AOcpKPIs reflect critical pharmacist activities including clinical order review, patient education, medication adherence assessment, and management of drug therapy problems. This suite of AOcpKPIs provides a standardized approach for evaluating oncology pharmacist activities in ambulatory care, facilitating benchmarking and supporting evidence-based improvements in patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study represents a significant advancement in defining quality metrics for ambulatory oncology pharmacy practice. The consensus-based AOcpKPIs provide a foundation for enhanced patient care, professional accountability, and continuous quality improvement within oncology pharmacy. Implementing these AOcpKPIs has the potential to elevate oncology pharmacy practice, supporting pharmacists in meeting evolving health care demands and fostering evidence-based patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".