OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe the implementation process for comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) among community pharmacies (e.g., processes for prioritizing patients, staffing, and information collection) and (2) examine factors associated with community pharmacies' CMR information collection process. METHODS: A survey was administered to the pharmacist responsible for implementation of CMRs (i.e., the lead pharmacist) in the community pharmacy (n = 87). The survey included questions about pharmacy characteristics, satisfaction with the NC community pharmacy enhanced services network (NC-CPESN) program, and implementation of CMRs. Frequencies and means were calculated to describe the sample characteristics and pharmacies' CMR implementation process. A multiple linear regression was conducted to examine which characteristics were associated with the CMR information collection process. RESULTS: The majority of pharmacies in the sample were either independently owned single stores (46.5%) or multiple stores under the same independent ownership (41.6%). Most pharmacies used pharmacists (97.7%) or pharmacy technicians (65.5%) for patient outreach for CMRs. A small percentage of pharmacies used administrative staff to conduct patient outreach for CMRs (9.2%). Information for prescription medications (89.5%), indication (80%), and medication adherence (81.1%) was routinely collected. Information such as date of last dose for prescription medications (48.4%) and lifestyle factors, such as physical activity (21.1%), diet (29.5%), and alcohol (31.6%), was collected less routinely. Having a clinical pharmacist (P = 0.025) and pharmacist overlap hours (P = 0.009) significantly improved the CMR information collection process. CONCLUSION: Although CMRs are important interventions for improving patient outcomes, more guidance is needed on how to effectively implement them. This would allow the process to be efficient and assure implementation with fidelity across all community pharmacies. In addition, staffing appears to influence the quality of CMR information collection. Future research is warranted on CMR implementation to develop efficient staffing models and standardize the process of information collection.
OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe the implementation process for comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) among community pharmacies (e.g., processes for prioritizing patients, staffing, and information collection) and (2) examine factors associated with community pharmacies' CMR information collection process. METHODS: A survey was administered to the pharmacist responsible for implementation of CMRs (i.e., the lead pharmacist) in the community pharmacy (n = 87). The survey included questions about pharmacy characteristics, satisfaction with the NC community pharmacy enhanced services network (NC-CPESN) program, and implementation of CMRs. Frequencies and means were calculated to describe the sample characteristics and pharmacies' CMR implementation process. A multiple linear regression was conducted to examine which characteristics were associated with the CMR information collection process. RESULTS: The majority of pharmacies in the sample were either independently owned single stores (46.5%) or multiple stores under the same independent ownership (41.6%). Most pharmacies used pharmacists (97.7%) or pharmacy technicians (65.5%) for patient outreach for CMRs. A small percentage of pharmacies used administrative staff to conduct patient outreach for CMRs (9.2%). Information for prescription medications (89.5%), indication (80%), and medication adherence (81.1%) was routinely collected. Information such as date of last dose for prescription medications (48.4%) and lifestyle factors, such as physical activity (21.1%), diet (29.5%), and alcohol (31.6%), was collected less routinely. Having a clinical pharmacist (P = 0.025) and pharmacist overlap hours (P = 0.009) significantly improved the CMR information collection process. CONCLUSION: Although CMRs are important interventions for improving patient outcomes, more guidance is needed on how to effectively implement them. This would allow the process to be efficient and assure implementation with fidelity across all community pharmacies. In addition, staffing appears to influence the quality of CMR information collection. Future research is warranted on CMR implementation to develop efficient staffing models and standardize the process of information collection.
Authors: Megan G Smith; Stefanie P Ferreri; Patrick Brown; Kristen Wines; Christopher M Shea; Trista M Pfeiffenberger Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2017-02-04
Authors: Courtney L Bradley; Heidi R Luder; Andrew F Beck; Rachel Bowen; Pamela C Heaton; Robert S Kahn; Mona Mansour; Stephen Obszarski; Stacey M Frede Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2016-05-27
Authors: Meera Viswanathan; Leila C Kahwati; Carol E Golin; Susan J Blalock; Emmanuel Coker-Schwimmer; Rachael Posey; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ross T Tsuyuki; Jeffrey A Johnson; Koon K Teo; Scot H Simpson; Margaret L Ackman; Rosemarie S Biggs; Andrew Cave; Wei-Ching Chang; Vladimir Dzavik; Karen B Farris; Donna Galvin; William Semchuk; Jeff G Taylor Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-05-27
Authors: Kea Turner; Morris Weinberger; Chelsea Renfro; Stefanie Ferreri; Troy Trygstad; Justin Trogdon; Christopher M Shea Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm Date: 2018-09-27
Authors: Melissa Johnson; Rebecca Jastrzab; Jared Tate; Kate Johnson; Elizabeth Hall-Lipsy; Rose Martin; Ann M Taylor; Terri Warholak Journal: J Manag Care Spec Pharm Date: 2018-02