OBJECTIVE: To compare the completeness of medication and blood pressure monitoring among patients requesting medication refills through the pharmacist-managed medication refill and laboratory monitoring program (MRLMP) versus usual care. DESIGN: Quasiexperimental study. SETTING:Kaiser Permanente Colorado between November 2011 and June 2012. PATIENTS: Patients requesting chronic medication prescription refills. INTERVENTION: Community pharmacists managed the refill authorization request (RAR) process at the intervention site. For each RAR, the pharmacist reviewed patient medication monitoring needs and ordered laboratory test(s) or a clinic visit, as needed, before approval. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For medications due for laboratory or blood pressure monitoring at the time of the RAR, the 1-month rate of attaining complete monitoring was compared between groups. Pharmacist, primary care physician (PCP), and patient satisfaction and PCP time saved also were compared. RESULTS: 3,797 RARs for MRLMP-eligible medications were approved in the month following MRLMP implementation in the intervention and control clinics. The intervention and control groups converted 49% and 29% of medications due for laboratory monitoring ( P < 0.001) and 56% and 33% of those due for blood pressure monitoring, respectively ( P = 0.020). The intervention group PCPs were more likely than control group PCPs to report being "very satisfied" with the RAR process (80% vs. 27%, P = 0.015) and spent fewer minutes per day on refill requests (mean 17 vs. 23, P = 0.049). The intervention group pharmacists reported higher job satisfaction (mean index score 22 vs. 18, P = 0.024), and intervention group patients reported higher satisfaction with the "readiness" of their prescription when they came to pick it up (91% vs. 80%, P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-managed MRLMP resulted in improved process-related outcomes. Future studies should assess clinical outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the completeness of medication and blood pressure monitoring among patients requesting medication refills through the pharmacist-managed medication refill and laboratory monitoring program (MRLMP) versus usual care. DESIGN: Quasiexperimental study. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Colorado between November 2011 and June 2012. PATIENTS: Patients requesting chronic medication prescription refills. INTERVENTION: Community pharmacists managed the refill authorization request (RAR) process at the intervention site. For each RAR, the pharmacist reviewed patient medication monitoring needs and ordered laboratory test(s) or a clinic visit, as needed, before approval. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For medications due for laboratory or blood pressure monitoring at the time of the RAR, the 1-month rate of attaining complete monitoring was compared between groups. Pharmacist, primary care physician (PCP), and patient satisfaction and PCP time saved also were compared. RESULTS: 3,797 RARs for MRLMP-eligible medications were approved in the month following MRLMP implementation in the intervention and control clinics. The intervention and control groups converted 49% and 29% of medications due for laboratory monitoring ( P < 0.001) and 56% and 33% of those due for blood pressure monitoring, respectively ( P = 0.020). The intervention group PCPs were more likely than control group PCPs to report being "very satisfied" with the RAR process (80% vs. 27%, P = 0.015) and spent fewer minutes per day on refill requests (mean 17 vs. 23, P = 0.049). The intervention group pharmacists reported higher job satisfaction (mean index score 22 vs. 18, P = 0.024), and intervention group patients reported higher satisfaction with the "readiness" of their prescription when they came to pick it up (91% vs. 80%, P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-managed MRLMP resulted in improved process-related outcomes. Future studies should assess clinical outcomes.
Authors: Scott D Nelson; Hayley H Rector; Daniel Brashear; Janos L Mathe; Haomin Wen; Stacey Lynn English; William Hedges; Christoph U Lehmann; Asli Ozdas-Weitkamp; Shane P Stenner Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 2.342