Standardization of key performance indicators and metrics for investigational drug services (IDS): Consensus recommendations among IDS specialists

Molly Schmidt; Lisa Janssen Carlson; Jennifer Murphy; Sapna R Amin; Robin Lockhorst; Kyle Luedtke

doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxae061

Standardization of key performance indicators and metrics for investigational drug services (IDS): Consensus recommendations among IDS specialists

Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2024 Mar 19:zxae061. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxae061. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Molly Schmidt¹, Lisa Janssen Carlson², Jennifer Murphy³, Sapna R Amin⁴, Robin Lockhorst⁵, Kyle Luedtke⁶

Affiliations

¹ Avera McKennan Hospital & University Health Center, Sioux Falls, SD, USA.
² University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
³ UC Davis Medical Center, Davis, CA, and UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Davis, CA, USA.
⁴ MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
⁵ Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD, USA.
⁶ University of Virginia Health System, City, VA, USA.

PMID: 38502866
DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxae061

Abstract

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 are currently no consensus guidelines on establishing metrics for investigational drug services (IDS). Because of the complexity of research protocols, it remains difficult for sites to track pharmacy productivity and create a baseline for IDS growth within the institution, as well as to perform benchmarking with peer institutions. The goal of this study was to help establish practical guidance for IDS metrics and site utility as applicable.

Methods: This was a survey-based project conducted by the metrics subgroup of the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) IDS special interest group (SIG), which was formed specifically for this analysis. Three surveys developed by the metrics subgroup were sent to members of the IDS HOPA SIG to gather metrics. The first survey included questions about what metrics IDS sites currently collect. The identified metrics were then condensed into categories. Through a consensus-based approach, standardized definitions were established and applied to future surveys. The 2 subsequent surveys sent to HOPA SIG members helped create a list of top recommended metrics that are recommended for every IDS site to track.

Results: A total of 3 surveys were sent to 75 recipients, with the response rate ranging from 24% to 38%. From these surveys and consensus with the metrics subgroup, 5 top recommended metrics were identified: (1) active protocols; (2) dispenses; (3) new clinical trials initiated; (4) patients treated; and (5) clinical interventions.

Conclusion: These recommended metrics should serve as guidance and allow for standardization to help ensure adequate resources are available for IDS pharmacy staff. These recommendations should serve as a basis for standardization and benchmarking with peer institutions.

Keywords: clinical trial; investigational drug services; leadership; metrics; research; survey.