Back

The implementation of KPI (key performance indicators) to manage the Pharmacovigilance System of a public vaccine producer in Brazil

Oliveira, M. M. M.; Oliveira, F. L. d. C.; Gattas, V. L.; Santos, C. L.; Wagner, G. A.; Taminato, M.

2025-02-25 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2025.02.23.25322752 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPharmacovigilance (PV) is a critical science aimed at enhancing patient safety. For a pharmacovigilance system (PVS) to be effective, it must be robust, efficient, and regularly evaluated to ensure ongoing improvement. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are essential quantifiable measures that evaluate the performance of companies, processes, and systems, including pharmacovigilance. AimThis study aimed to implement and evaluate KPIs for the PVS of a public vaccine producer in Brazil, identifying improvement areas and supporting continuous enhancement. MethodsKPI selection for Instituto Butantans PVS was guided by a systematic review and benchmarking with pharmaceutical representatives, followed by validation through expert consensus. A dashboard was created for KPI implementation, with goals, measurements, and evaluation frequency detailed in the institutions Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). ResultsThe review identified one KPI for a Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) PV process. Interviews with pharmaceutical company representatives led to 25 additional KPIs, with one overlapping. After expert review, all KPIs were approved after adjustments, and 10 were piloted, including metrics like the number of individual case safety reports (ICSR), ICSR per product, and serious adverse events (SAE) per product. A dashboard tracked these KPIs monthly in 2022 and 2023. ConclusionOver two years, KPI evaluations proved valuable, prompting improvements in PV processes and tools. Results indicated that expanding to the remaining KPIs would further enhance Instituto Butantans PVS. Pharmacovigilance, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Quality Improvement

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.