{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018664454583160513, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004977187888842804, 'mean_word_length': 5.608219178082192, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Development and implementation of a standardized process for identifying ambulatory pharmacy clinical outcomes measures.

DISCLAIMER
In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.


PURPOSE
There is minimal available guidance on the process for selection of clinical outcomes measures to demonstrate the impact of clinic-based pharmacists (CBPs) despite an increased need and desire for outcomes data. The overall aims of this project were to (1) develop a standardized process for identifying clinical outcomes measures impacted by CBPs and (2) identify and prioritize potential clinical outcomes measures to track for CBPs within 4 specialty clinic pilot sites.


METHODS
To develop a standardized process for identification and prioritization of measures, 4 consecutive Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were performed with 4 different specialty clinics serving as pilot sites. Following each pilot cycle, rapid cycle improvements were implemented. A modified Delphi methodology served as the framework for measure selection and included gathering expert stakeholder insights regarding importance, feasibility, and validity of potential measures. Measures were identified via environmental scan of existing validated quality metrics, clinical guidelines, and other relevant literature.


RESULTS
The primary outcome for this project was the development and refinement of a standardized process for measure identification and prioritization. The secondary outcome was narrowed and ranked lists of stakeholder-prioritized measures for 4 CBP-embedded pilot specialty clinics. These lists included 12 cardiothoracic transplant, 6 breast oncology, 9 neurology, and 7 gynecologic oncology measures.


CONCLUSION
The measure identification and prioritization process developed was successfully utilized to identify and prioritize outcomes measures to track for 4 CBP-embedded specialty clinics. Due to the successful use of the process in a variety of specialty clinics, the standardized process has significant potential for expansion.