Data analysis
The data needed to determine the Activity Standard concerned the tasks
required to deliver pharmaceutical care, the times these tasks should
take and the frequency that they should be delivered. These data were
analysed using descriptive statistics, using the mode value to identify
consensus. The extent to which consensus was achieved was depicted using
a ‘RAG’ rating (see Table 2) to give greater clarity on the strength of
the consensus for each component, since there is no universal definition
of consensus[21, 22]. This was particularly necessary where
consensus was not reached for tasks to include in the CPWC, which then
needed a finite value for the time taken to complete them and the
frequency they should be undertaken for the algorithm in the CPWC to
function. For times and frequencies associated with these tasks the
typical binary approach of consensus/no-consensus was not practical. The
RAG rating identified where agreement was widespread (green
>70%) and where there were elements of greater variety of
opinion (amber >50%). Where consensus (i.e. greater than
50% agreement on a specific figure) could not be achieved for the time
a task took, the value for the algorithm was derived from the data
provided. To be meaningful in calculating staffing levels nationally,
these derived figures had to represent UK national practice and so the
data was analysed by mean and median as well as mode to determine a
‘national best representative’ figure. Similarly, for the frequency of
task completion where consensus was not achieved, especially for
patient-dependent activities, responses from the exemplar patient
questions in Round two were used to calculate an ‘average’ frequency for
the purposes of algorithm development. To complete the WISN algorithm
(Figure 1), the ‘unavailable’ staff time was calculated from a mean of
reported data.