Search

Objective: To quantify the use of the interprofessional team member (ITM) domain of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) by North Dakota pharmacists across practice sites, roles in practice, and by preceptor status. Methods: Survey methods were used to characterize the self-reported frequency with which pharmacists undertake core EPAs and supporting tasks in the ITM domain. The survey was administered to registered pharmacists practicing in North Dakota (n=990) during the fall of 2018, of which 457 (46.1%) responded. After eliminating responses with incomplete or missing information, 119 responses were available for analysis. Results: For the overall EPA ITM domain, “Collaborate as a member of an interprofessional team population” pharmacists reported performing these activities an average (mean) of 3.3 times per month (SD=2.3). Within this domain, the highest reported example activity was “Use setting appropriate communication skills when interacting with others” (mean=4.1, SD 1.8), followed by “Communicate a patient’s medication-related problem(s) to another health professional” (mean=3.3, SD 2.0), and “Contribute medication-related expertise to the team’s work” (mean=3.1, SD=2.2). ITM domain and supporting example activities were performed at a greater rate in hospitals, community health centers and long-term-care facilities. For most items, preceptors reported a greater use of activities, than did non-preceptors. Conclusions: North Dakota pharmacists currently complete tasks outlined in the ITM domain of the EPAs, although their contributions are varied by task, role, and preceptor status.

More than 50% of Americans possess at least one chronic condition and another 25% suffer from two or more, leaving primary care teams tasked to care for the chronic, acute, and preventive care needs of their large patient panels. Pharmacists can reduce the burden on busy providers by effectively managing chronic diseases as members of health care teams. Many private physician practices lack the resources to include pharmacists on their teams. A centralized, remote clinical pharmacy services model allows pharmacists to remotely manage chronic disease in patients in collaboration with primary care providers. The purpose of this report is to describe how a centralized, remote clinical pharmacy team was developed, trained, and effectively integrated into multiple, diverse primary care settings across the U.S.

Background: Self-administered medication (SAM) is encouraged in many hospitals worldwide as it increases patients’ knowledge and understanding of their medication, but the effects on other outcomes, e.g. compliance or medication errors, were unclear. Objectives: To compare medication knowledge, adherence, medication errors, and hospital readmission among inpatients receiving SAM education under the supervision of a multidisciplinary team (study group) with those receiving routine nurse-administered medication (control group). Methods: This study was a PROBE design. Inpatients with chronic diseases were randomly allocated (1:1) to either the study group or the control group using stratified-block randomization. Knowledge of medications was measured at hospital discharge and at the first two follow-up visits; adherence was measured at the first two follow-up visits, medication errors while in hospital, and hospital readmission within 60 days after discharge. For normally distributed continuous outcomes, mean difference and 95%CI were estimated; otherwise the median and the Mann-Whitney test p-value were reported. The percentage difference and 95%CI were reported for binary outcomes. Results: 70 patients were randomized (35 in each group); all received complete follow-up. Both groups were similar at baseline. Mean (SD) age (years) were 59.2 (11.0) for the study group and 58.3 (12.0) for the control group. Percentages of females in the respective groups were 54.3 and 60.0. Mean time from discharge to the first follow-up visit was two weeks in both groups and time to the second follow-up visit were 68.8 days (study group) and 55.0 days (control group). The study group had significantly higher medication knowledge than the control group at hospital discharge (of the 10-point scale, medians, 8.56 and 6.18, respectively, p

To address the changes in health care and the needs of society related to medicines, we must redefine the profession of pharmacy. We have defined the next generation pharmacists (NGP) as “a health care provider and change agent on the interprofessional health care team, personalizing medication use, managing safe and effective medication systems, and creating healthier communities.” Schools and colleges of pharmacy should thoroughly examine their curriculum to ensure it is preparing pharmacists for this future. By creating a vision for the NGP and implementing the best curriculum, we ensure that pharmacists of the future will be up to the challenge of our society's health care needs..

Background: Physicians’ acceptance of clinical pharmacy services is dependent on exposure to those services, with use increasing as resident physicians progress through their training. Resident physicians train within environments that have a multidisciplinary teaching and clinical care approach, working closely with other healthcare professionals. Ambulatory care pharmacists are increasingly working with resident physicians in clinic settings as part of the multidisciplinary team, and identification of resident physicians’ perceptions may influence future collaboration. Objective: The objective of this research is to evaluate the perception of ambulatory care clinical pharmacy services from the perspective of resident physicians. Methods: A statewide network of ambulatory care pharmacists was identified and received an electronic questionnaire. Pharmacists working within clinics that serve as training sites for resident physicians then completed and distributed questionnaires to the resident physicians within their clinical site. Items related to demographics and perception of involvement and interactions with clinical pharmacists. Results: Forty-five resident physicians responded from four unique clinical sites (response rate = 42%). They agreed or strongly agreed that pharmacists help patients obtain their therapeutic goals (97.8%), are able to educate patients effectively (95.6%), provide high quality care (97.8%), and do a good job helping co-manage patients (91.1%). Previous exposure to pharmacists was limited primarily to the drugstore (48.9%) and hospital (51.1%) settings. Resident physicians in the third year of training and those reporting a friend was a pharmacist, were more likely to have a positive perception of the pharmacist’s role as a resident educator (p=0.048 and p=0.044, respectively). Conclusions: Resident physicians with a longer duration of exposure and personal friendship with a pharmacist are more likely to express positive perceptions. Areas for further enhancements in this interprofessional relationship related to perceptions about pharmacist autonomy and patient relationships were identified.

Objective: The medication follow-up in infants with extremely low birth-weight in a neonatal intensive care unit is described, identifying drug-related problems (DRP), drug-related negative outcomes, and the relationship between the occurrence of DRP and birth-weight of newborns and their impact on pharmacotherapy and length of hospital stay. Methods: A descriptive and exploratory study was performed in which medication follow-up of a population of infants with extremely low birth-weight admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit of a government-run maternity hospital was carried out by clinical pharmacists. Monitoring comprised assessment of patients’ pharmacotherapy needs through visits to the neonatal unit, evaluation of prescriptions and information on medical records, identification of issues associated with pharmacotherapy and follow-up of the newborns’ clinical evolution to determine whether desired results were achieved. Results: The subjects were 33 infants characterized by extremely low weight at birth. Analysis of patients’ pharmacotherapy showed that 39.4% (n=13) of the neonates presented some type of DRP, totaling 37 DRPs and a mean of 2.8 problems/patient. Fourteen drugs were identified with the occurrence of DRP. Vancomycin and cefepime were the most prevalent, with 18.9% (n=7). Occurrence of DRPs and several clinical characteristics of newborns and their pharmacotherapy were compared. The most prevalent drug-related negative outcomes identified were “untreated health problem” (40%, n=10) and “quantitative ineffectiveness” (32%, n=8). Pharmaceutical interventions were performed for all problems associated with pharmacotherapy, with a prevalence of “treatment day count correction” and “dose correction”, both with 21.6% (n=8), and “correction of dosage” (16.2%, n=6). Conclusion: The research evidenced the role of the clinical pharmacist in the solution and prevention of drug-related problems, contributing with the multidisciplinary team to obtain a safe and effective pharmacotherapy. Further, current study confirmed that there is an association between the characteristics of the newborns under analysis (eg. birth-weight, pharmacotherapy) and the occurrence of drug-related problems.

Background: Modern medical care increasingly requires coordinated teamwork and communication between healthcare professionals of different disciplines. Unfortunately, healthcare professional students are rarely afforded the opportunity to learn effective methods of interprofessional (IP) communication and teamwork strategies during their education. The question of how to best incorporate IP interactions in the curricula of the schools of health professions remains unanswered. Objective: We aim to solve the lack of IP education in the pharmacy curricula through the use of high fidelity simulation (HFS) to allow teams of medical, pharmacy, nursing, physician assistant, and social work students to work together in a controlled environment to solve cases of complex medical and social issues. Methods: Once weekly for a 4-week time period, students worked together to complete complex simulation scenarios in small IP teams consisting of pharmacy, medical, nursing, social work, and physician assistant students. Student perception of the use of HFS was evaluated by a survey given at the conclusion of the HFS sessions. Team communication was evaluated through the use of Communication and Teamwork Skills (CATS) Assessment by 2 independent evaluators external to the project. Results: The CATS scores improved from the HFS sessions 1 to 2 (p = 0.01), 2 to 3 (p = 0.035), and overall from 1 to 4 (p = 0.001). The inter-rater reliability between evaluators was high (0.85, 95% CI 0.71, 0.99). Students perceived the HFS improved: their ability to communicate with other professionals (median =4); confidence in patient care in an IP team (median=4). It also stimulated student interest in IP work (median=4.5), and was an efficient use of student time (median=4.5) Conclusion: The use of HFS improved student teamwork and communication and was an accepted teaching modality. This method of exposing students of the health sciences to IP care should be incorporated throughout the curricula.

Background: Lack of adherence to medication is a trigger of graft rejection in solid-organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Objective: This exploratory study aimed to assess whether a biopsychosocial evaluation using the INTERMED instrument before transplantation could identify SOT recipients at risk of suboptimal post-transplantation adherence to immunosuppressant drugs. We hypothesized that complex patients (INTERMED>20) might have lower medication adherence than noncomplex patients (INTERMED≤20). Methods: Each patient eligible for transplantation at the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland, has to undergo a pre-transplantation psychiatric evaluation. In this context the patient was asked to participate in our study. The INTERMED was completed pre-transplantation, and adherence to immunosuppressive medication was monitored post-transplantation by electronic monitors for 12 months. The main outcome measure was the implementation and persistence to two calcineurin inhibitors, cyclosporine and tacrolimus, according to the dichotomized INTERMED score (>20 or ≤20). Results: Among the 50 SOT recipients who completed the INTERMED, 32 entered the study. The complex (N=11) and noncomplex patients (N=21) were similar in terms of age, sex and transplanted organ. Implementation was 94.2% in noncomplex patients versus 87.8% in complex patients (non-significant p-value). Five patients were lost to follow-up: one was non-persistent, and four refused electronic monitoring. Of the four patients who refused monitoring, two were complex and withdrew early, and two were noncomplex and withdrew later in the study. Conclusion: Patients identified as complex pre-transplant by the INTERMED tended to deviate from their immunosuppressant regimen, but the findings were not statistically significant. Larger studies are needed to evaluate this association further, as well as the appropriateness of using a nonspecific biopsychosocial instrument such as INTERMED in highly morbid patients who have complex social and psychological characteristics.

Utilizing a multidisciplinary approach to management of patients with certain chronic cardiovascular diseases (CVD) has been shown to improve treatment outcomes. The role of clinical pharmacists in comprehensive outpatient CVD management has not been evaluated. Objective: The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the impact of a clinical pharmacist added to cardiologist care on blood pressure (BP), a key surrogate marker of CVD, in outpatients with CVD compared to cardiologist care alone. Methods: A retrospective, matched-control study was conducted in patients established in a cardiovascular clinic. The intervention was referral to a pharmacist clinic; control was usual care from the cardiologist. The surrogate marker evaluated was the change in BP. Results: Patients in the pharmacist-intervention (n=57) experienced significant reductions in diastolic BP (-2.6 mmHg, p=0.05) and non-significant reductions in systolic BP (-4.3 mmHg, p=0.16) compared to baseline, whereas patients in the control group experienced non-significant increases in both systolic and diastolic BP (+1.6/+0.7 mmHg, p=NS). Similarly, there were significant reductions in diastolic BP and non-significant reductions in systolic BP for the intervention group when compared to controls (difference 3.3 mmHg, p=0.04 and 5.9 mmHg, p=0.1, respectively). Lastly, the proportion of patients categorized as having Stage 2 BP was significantly reduced in the intervention group (p=0.02), but not in the controls (p=0.5). Conclusions: The multidisciplinary model of care that included a clinical pharmacist reduced BP more than usual care by a cardiologist alone. This benefit was demonstrated in complex patients with CVD who were already receiving specialized care. The impact of this model on clinical outcomes requires further evaluation and should be a high priority given the burden of CVD in the population. Utilizar un abordaje multidisciplinar para el manejo de pacientes con determinadas enfermedades cardiovasculares (CVD) ha demostrado mejorar los resultados del tratamiento. No ha sido evaluado el papel del farmacéutico clínico en manejo ambulatorio completo de las CVD. Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio piloto fue evaluar el impacto del farmacéutico clínico añadido al cardiólogo en los cuidados de la presión arterial (BP), marcador intermedio clave de CVD, en pacientes ambulatorios con CVD comparando con el cardiólogo solo. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo de control emparejado en pacientes atendidos en una clínica cardiovascular. La intervención era la remisión a un farmacéutico clínico; el control fue la atención habitual del cardiólogo. El marcador intermedio evaluado fue el cambio en BP. Resultados: Los pacientes en el grupo intervención-farmacéutica (n=57) experimentaron reducciones significativas en la BP diastólica (-2.6 mmHg, p=0.05) y reducciones no significativas en la sistólica (-4.3 mmHg, p=0.16) comparadas con el inicio mientras que los pacientes en el grupo control experimentaron aumentos no significativos tanto en las BP sistólica como diastólica (+1.6/+0.7 mmHg, p=NS). Asimismo, hubo reducciones significativas en al BP diastólica y no significativas en la BP sistólica para el grupo intervención comparado con el control (diferencia 3.3 mmHg, p=0.04 y 5.9 mmHg, p=0.1, respectivamente). Por último, se redujo significativamente la proporción de pacientes en el grupo intervención clasificados como teniendo un estado 2 de BP (p=0,02) pero no en el grupo control (p=0,5). Conclusiones: El modelo multidisciplinario de cuidados que incluía un farmacéutico clínico redujo la BP más que el modelo habitual de cuidados con el cardiólogo solo. Este beneficio fue demostrado en pacientes con CVD compleja que ya estaban recibiendo cuidados especializados. El impacto de este modelo sobre los resultados clínicos requiere más evaluaciones y debería darse alta prioridad al daño de las CVD en esta población.

Physician led collaborative drug therapy management utilizing clinical pharmacists to aid in the medication management of patients with hypertension has been shown to improve blood pressure control. With recommendations for lower blood pressures in patients with coronary artery disease, a cardiologist-pharmacist collaborative care model may be a novel way to achieve these more rigorous goals of therapy. Objective: The purpose of this project was to evaluate this type of care model in a high cardiac risk patient population. Methods: A retrospective cohort study determined the ability of a cardiologist-pharmacist care model (n=59) to lower blood pressure and achieve blood pressure goals (< 130/80 mmHg) in patients with or at high risk for coronary artery disease compared to usual cardiologist care (n=58) in the same clinical setting. Results: The cardiologist-pharmacist care model showed a higher percentage of patients obtaining their goal blood pressure compared to cardiologist care alone, 49.2% versus 31.0% respectively, p=0.0456. Greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (-22 mmHg versus -12 mmHg, p=0.0077) and pulse pressure (-15 mmHg versus -7 mmHg, p=0.0153) were noted in the cardiologist-pharmacist care model. No differences in diastolic blood pressure were found. There was a shorter duration of clinic follow-up (7.0 versus 13.2 months, p=0.0013) but a higher frequency of clinic visits (10.7 versus 3.45, p