Quality improvement study demonstrates stable incident rates and improved supplier performance across hospital pharmacy orders, indicating the feasibility of structured monitoring.
OBJECTIVE: To establish an internal system for the approval and monitoring of pharmaceutical product suppliers and, through this, to improve management efficiency and objectivity, reduce logistical incidents and stock shortages and carry out a transparent and objective selection of suppliers. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team was set up to define approval criteria and a biannual monitoring system based on the detection of eight agreed types of logistical incidents weighted according to their severity. Throughout the monitoring process, incidents were recorded electronically and downloaded for analysis. Those suppliers with the highest number of incidents, weighted and adjusted to the number of orders, were subjected to an evaluation rubric. RESULTS: In 2023, 200 suppliers and 43 393 orders were analysed, with 443 incidents. In 2024, 206 suppliers and 46 045 orders were evaluated, with 468 incidents. The most frequent incidents in both years were missing delivery notes, missing packages and stock shortages. The rubric was applied to a total of 20 suppliers. In 2023, 70% obtained a 'good' result, 20% an 'intermediate' result and 10% a 'poor' result. In 2024, 90% achieved the 'good' category and 10% obtained an 'excellent' result. The re-evaluated suppliers showed an improvement in their scores. DISCUSSION: The implementation of this system enabled structured monitoring of supplier performance. Despite an increase in order volume, incident rates remained stable, suggesting robustness. The model facilitates the identification of areas for improvement. However, potential subjectivity in the evaluation criteria and the descriptive study design should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: This model provides a practical framework for supplier evaluation in hospital pharmacy. It may support quality improvement and could be adaptable to other settings, although further validation is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sanjuan-Casanova et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: