scholarly journals Development and implementation of a community pharmacy medication therapy management-based transition of care program in the managed Medicaid population

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Kelling ◽  
David R. Bright ◽  
Timothy R. Ulbrich ◽  
Donald L. Sullivan ◽  
James Gartner ◽  
...  

Objective: To describe successes and barriers with the development and implementation of a community pharmacy medication therapy management-based transition of care program in the managed Medicaid population. Setting: A single supermarket chain pharmacy Practice description: Community pharmacists provide dispensing and non-dispensing pharmacy services including medication therapy management, biometric wellness screenings, and immunizations. Practice innovation: Developed and implemented a community pharmacy medication therapy management-based transition of care program for patients with managed Medicaid Main outcome measures: Feasibility of developing and implementing a transition of care service in a community pharmacy Results: During the first six months, a total of 17 patients were seen as part of the program. Study pharmacists identified successes and potential strategies for overcoming barriers. Conclusion: Developing and implementing a community pharmacy transition of care program for patients with managed Medicaid was logistically feasible.   Type: Original Research

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey A. Lester ◽  
Jennifer L. Helmke ◽  
Tana N. Kaefer ◽  
Leticia R. Moczygemba ◽  
Jean-Venable R. Goode

Objective: The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a process for integrating components of medication therapy management services into a community pharmacy workflow. Secondary objectives were to evaluate outcomes as well as patient and pharmacist satisfaction with this change. Methods: This prospective, 3-month observational study took place in a small, independent community pharmacy. This intervention included a redesigned work system that included a seated private desk area and focus on the pharmacist, rather than the technician, being the first contact when patients entered the pharmacy. Pharmacists participated in a focus group before and after the implementation of the new workflow to better understand the delivery of the intervention and assess satisfaction. Process outcomes included time spent with the patient, the number of medication-related problems identified and recommendations made, the type of disease education provided, type and number of immunizations administered, and health monitoring tests performed. Patient satisfaction surveys were distributed after completing the intervention during the third month of the study. Results: A total of 56 patients were enrolled in this study resulting in 82 encounters. Forty medication-related problems, including experiencing an adverse drug reaction and ineffective therapy, were identified with recommendations made to patients or prescribers. Disease education, such as goals of therapy, was provided 46 times. Health monitoring tests, such as blood pressure, were performed 16 times and eight immunizations were administered. The revised workflow incorporating components of MTM services was successful in that 39% of encounters were less than two minutes and 49% of encounters were between two and five minutes in length. Only 12% of encounters were greater than five minutes. Overall, patients were very satisfied with the intervention. Pharmacists responded positively, but expressed concern that the changes to the work system prevented them from overseeing technician functions. Conclusion: Pharmacists in community practice are able to provide components of medication therapy management services during a brief, face-to-face interaction with patients. Overall, patients and pharmacists were satisfied with the changes to the pharmacy work system and that additional work system changes are needed to further expand the role of the community pharmacist and facilitate patient-pharmacist interactions.   Type: Original Research


2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendall D. Guthrie ◽  
Steven C. Stoner ◽  
D. Matthew Hartwig ◽  
Justin R. May ◽  
Sara E. Nicolaus ◽  
...  

Objectives: (1) To identify physicians’ preferences in regard to pharmacist-provided medication therapy management (MTM) communication in the community pharmacy setting; (2) to identify physicians’ perceived barriers to communicating with a pharmacist regarding MTM; and (3) to determine whether Missouri physicians feel MTM is beneficial for their patients. Methods: A cross-sectional prospective survey study of 2021 family and general practice physicians registered with MO HealthNet, Missouri’s Medicaid program. Results: The majority (52.8%) of physicians preferred MTM data to be communicated via fax. Most physicians who provided care to patients in long-term care (LTC) facilities (81.0%) preferred to be contacted at their practice location as opposed to the LTC facility. The greatest barriers to communication were lack of time and inefficient communication practices. Improved/enhanced communication was the most common suggestion for improvement in the MTM process. Approximately 67% of respondents reported MTM as beneficial or somewhat beneficial for their patients. Conclusions: Survey respondents saw value in the MTM services offered by pharmacists. However, pharmacists should use the identified preferences and barriers to improve their currently utilized communication practices in hopes of increasing acceptance of recommendations. Ultimately, this may assist MTM providers in working collaboratively with patients’ physicians.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julianne M Kowalski ◽  
Amanda R Margolis ◽  
Nicole Schreiner ◽  
Jeff Kirchner

Objectives: To identify characteristics of patients who accepted or declined an appointment for a transition of care service provided by an independent community pharmacist and identify the most common reasons patients declined the service. Methods: A transition of care service was offered by a community pharmacy to patients discharged to home from the cardiac unit of a local hospital. The community pharmacist approached patients prior to discharge for recruitment into the service. Outcomes included service acceptance rate, LACE score at discharge, readmission risk category, age, gender, geographic home location, and reason for refusing the service. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to compare characteristics between those who accepted or declined the service. Reasons for decline were assessed using content analysis. Results: Of the 87 patients that were included in the analysis, 21 patients received the transitions of care service (24.1%). None of the characteristics were found to be statistically significant between patients who received or declined the service. Patients at a moderate risk for readmission seemed more likely to accept the pharmacist-run appointment than those at high risk (27.9% vs 15.3%; P = 0.29). Of the 66 patients who declined, 51 gave a reason (77.3%). Thirty-nine patients saw no benefit (76.5%), five patients had perceived barriers (10%), and seven patients gave reasons that fell into both categories (13.5%). Conclusions: This evaluation did not find a statistically significant difference in characteristics between those patients who accepted or declined participation in a pharmacist-run transition of care service. Patients may be less likely to accept pharmacist-run transition of care appointments primarily due to no perceived benefits. To increase participation, we need to understand the patient’s health beliefs, educate patients on pharmacy services, and implement changes to recruit potential patients. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this evaluation. This evaluation was presented as a poster presentation at American Pharmacists Association Annual Meeting and Exposition, March 4-7, 2016 and at the Pharmacy Society of Wisconsin Education Conference, April 5-6, 2016. This evaluation was presented as a podium presentation at Great Lakes Residency Conference, April 27-29, 2016.   Type: Original Research


2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-185.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Lengel ◽  
Catherine H. Kuhn ◽  
Marcia Worley ◽  
Allison M. Wehr ◽  
James W. McAuley

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1104-1111 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. Doucette ◽  
Randal P. McDonough ◽  
Donald Klepser ◽  
Renee McCarthy

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document