Irwin, Adriane N.

ABSTRACT Key performance indicators (KPIs) are quantifiable measures that describe critical success factors of an organization. Their vital role in ensuring the delivery of quality health care services necessitates the development of KPIs relevant to inpatient clinical pharmacy practice. This opinion paper from the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Clinical Administration Practice and Research Network (CADM PRN) describes the rationale, methodology, and outcomes of a consensus process to identify a focused set of inpatient/acute care clinical pharmacy KPIs. Leveraging a modified Delphi approach, the CADM PRN convened an Expert Panel of clinical pharmacy leader members to build a consensus‐driven set of KPIs reflecting clinical, operational, patient‐centered, and financial contributions of clinical pharmacists in the inpatient/acute care setting. From a previous ACCP White Paper, a total of 15 KPIs were identified across four domains: (1) clinical practice and patient safety, (2) clinical outcomes and readmissions, (3) medication education and patient engagement, and (4) financial and operational value. The CADM PRN posits that the establishment and implementation of standardized KPIs are essential for measuring and demonstrating the value of clinical pharmacy services in modern health care, offers pragmatic, consensus‐based KPIs for evaluating clinical pharmacy services supporting resource justification, and advancing the visibility and impact of pharmacists in acute care practice. As hospitals shift toward value‐based care, robust KPI frameworks will be critical for optimizing patient outcomes, supporting financial sustainability, and justifying appropriate staffing. Future efforts should focus on pilot testing, addressing implementation barriers, and achieving broader acceptance for KPIs across the profession.

ABSTRACT Interactions between clinical pharmacists and industry partners continue to evolve as health care increases in complexity and technology assumes a more dominant role. To address the corresponding ethical challenges, the 2025 Industry Relations Committee of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) was charged with updating the 2008 ACCP position statement, Pharmacists and Industry: Guidelines for Ethical Interactions . This update expands its perspective, reflecting the broader and more influential roles pharmacists play across the health care ecosystem. All clinical pharmacist–industry interactions should be grounded in improving patient care. Through this lens, six recommendations are provided: (1) Pharmacists should not engage in industry partnerships or collaborations that might unduly influence objectivity, independence, or fairness in clinical and professional judgments; (2) Pharmacists should disclose and mitigate financial, consulting, or other relationships that constitute potential conflicts of interest and should not participate in activities where an existing conflict cannot be resolved; (3) Pharmacists who participate in industry‐sponsored research should follow accepted ethical, regulatory, and scientific standards; (4) Pharmacists providing continuing education programs or developing drug information materials should maintain control of content; ensure their content is fair, balanced, and free from bias; and disclose and mitigate any conflicts; (5) Formal instruction on ethical interactions with industry professionals should begin early and continue through all stages of pharmacist education, training, and professional development; (6) Pharmacists should maintain the confidentiality and privacy of patients and other health care professionals when working with industry partners. Questions to guide personal industry interactions are provided. This paper does not detail every emerging area (e.g., artificial intelligence, social media), but recommendations are applicable wherever clinical pharmacists leverage their professional expertise. By maintaining a critical, discerning, and ethical approach to industry collaborations, clinical pharmacists can uphold professional obligations while contributing to the advancement of evidence‐based practice, ultimately prioritizing patient welfare.