Implementation of a pharmacist care manager model to expand availability of medications for opioid use disorder

Purpose The rise in opioid prescribing, often for chronic pain management, resulted in an increased prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) throughout the United States, including within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. The veteran population has been especially vulnerable to opioid-related harms, but rates of prescribing medications for OUD have been low. Use of care manager models for OUD have increased access to treatment. In this article we provide an overview of a clinical pharmacist care manager (CPCM) model for medications for OUD treatment implemented within the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Summary A CPCM model for medications for OUD was identified as a care model that would address patient and facility barriers to effective OUD treatment. Pharmacists were integral in program development and implementation and served as the main care providers. An interim evaluation of the program established that the proportion of patients with OUD receiving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) had increased, with use of the program resulting in treatment of 109 unique patients during 625 visits. Key program implementation facilitators included the facility leadership establishing increased use of MOUD as a priority area, identification of a physician champion, and a history of successful expansion of clinical pharmacy specialist practice within the VA system. Implementation barriers included factors related to provider engagement, patient identification, and program support. The CPCM model of provision of MOUD expanded the pharmacist role in buprenorphine management. Conclusion The need to increase the number of patients receiving MOUD led to the implementation of a CPCM model. The program was effectively implemented into practice and expanded the availability of MOUD, which allowed patients to access treatment in multiple care settings.

Abstract 15008: Improvement in Patient Ratings of Hypertension Care in a Pragmatic Cluster-randomized Trial of Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Pharmacist Care (Hyperlink 3)

Introduction: Patient ratings of their experience of care are part of the “Triple Aim”. Improvements are highly valued by health care organizations, but are hard to achieve. Hypothesis: We tested the effect of a telehealth intervention on satisfaction with hypertension care. Methods: Hyperlink 3 is an ongoing pragmatic cluster-randomized trial in 3072 patients with uncontrolled hypertension in 21 primary care clinics in HealthPartners, an integrated health system in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Clinics were randomized to Clinic-based Care (CC, 9 clinics, 1648 patients) or Telehealth Care (TC, 12 clinics, 1424 patients). CC patients received guideline-based hypertension care in face-to-face visits. TC patients were additionally offered home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring with pharmacist care management. Patients were surveyed at baseline and after 6 months of study enrollment and asked to rate their hypertension care in the previous 6 months on a scale of 0-10. We compared change in the proportion of patients rating their care at the highest level (9 or 10). Results: In the TC group, about 37% of patients attended an intake pharmacist visit and 434 (30%) participated in home BP telemonitoring. Baseline surveys were completed by 1719 (56%) of patients at baseline (goal 50% completion) and 1301 (76%) of those completing the baseline survey completed the 6 month survey (goal 75% completion). Baseline survey respondents’ mean age was 62 y (non-respondents 58 y), 46% were men (non-respondents 48%), 19% were black (non-respondents 20%), and mean BP was 164/93 mm Hg (non-respondents 164/95 mm Hg.) Nearly all patients (over 90%) took antihypertensive medications (median 2). Hypertension care ratings of 9 or 10 were 27.9% at baseline and 30.2% at 6 months in CC, compared with 29.0% at baseline and 39.5% at 6 months in TC. The odds ratio (OR) for change over time in 9 or 10 ratings was 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 - 1.42) in CC, and 1.61 (95% CI 1.26 - 2.07) in TC. The OR for change in 9 or 10 ratings over time in TC vs CC was 1.45 (95% CI 1.03 - 2.06). Conclusions: Home BP telemonitoring with pharmacist care management increased the proportion of patients who highly rated their experience of hypertension care, even though only a minority of the TC patients received the intervention.

The Impact of Pharmacist Care on Diabetes Outcomes in Primary Care Settings: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

Objective: To systematically review published systematic reviews (SRs) examining the impact of pharmacist interventions in multidisciplinary diabetes care teams on diabetes-related clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes in primary care settings. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Database, Google Scholar, and PROSPERO were searched from inception to 2018. Studies published in English evaluating the effect of pharmacist interventions on diabetes outcomes were included. Two independent reviewers were involved in the screening of titles and abstracts, selection of studies, and methodological quality assessment. Results: Seven SRs were included in the study. Three of them included only randomized controlled trials, while the rest involved other study designs. Educational interventions by clinical pharmacists within the healthcare team were the most common types of interventions reported across all SRs. Pharmacist’s interventions compared to usual care resulted in favorable significant improvements in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, blood pressure, body mass index, total cholesterol, lowdensity lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein and triglycerides in more than 50% of the SRs. Improvement in HbA1c was the mostly reported clinical outcome of pharmacist intervention in the literature (reported in six SRs). Pharmacist’s interventions led to significant cost-saving ($8–$85,000 per person per year), cost-utility, and cost-benefit (benefit-to-cost ratio range from 1:1 to 8.5:1) versus usual care. Pharmacist’s interventions improved patients’ quality of life (QoL) in three SRs; however, no conclusion can be drawn due to the use of diverse QoL assessment tools. Conclusion: Most SRs support the benefit of pharmacist care on diabetes-related clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes in primary care settings. Improvements in diabetes outcomes can significantly reduce the burden of diabetes on the healthcare system. Hence, the incorporation of pharmacists into multidisciplinary diabetes care teams is beneficial and should be strongly considered by clinicians and health policymakers.

Abstract P165: Improvement In Self-monitoring Frequency, Electronic Data Sharing, And Medication Changes In A Pragmatic Cluster-randomized Trial Of Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring And Pharmacist Care (Hyperlink 3)

Introduction: Telehealth and remote monitoring have become critical to patient access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We measured the effect of a telehealth care intervention on frequency, sharing methods, and clinical usage of home blood pressure (BP) measurements. Methods: Hyperlink 3 is an ongoing pragmatic cluster-randomized trial in 3072 patients with uncontrolled hypertension in 21 primary care clinics in an integrated health system. Clinics were randomized to Clinic-based Care (CC, 9 clinics, 1648 patients) or Telehealth Care (TC, 12 clinics, 1424 patients). TC patients were offered home BP telemonitoring with pharmacist care management. Patients were surveyed at baseline (Nov 2017 - Apr 2019) and after 6 mo of study enrollment. Results: In the TC group, about 37% of patients attended an intake pharmacist visit and 434 (30%) participated in home BP telemonitoring. Baseline surveys were completed by 1719 (56%) of patients at baseline (goal 50%) and 1301 (76%) of those completing the baseline survey completed the 6 mo survey (goal 75%). Baseline survey respondents' mean age was 62, 46% were men, 19% were black, and mean BP was 164/93 mm Hg. Nearly all patients (>90%) took antihypertensive medications (median 2). The odds ratio (OR) for change in measuring BP > 2 times/week vs. less often was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87 - 1.42) in CC, and 2.01 (95% CI 1.56 - 2.59) in TC. The OR for change in frequent measurement in TC vs CC was 2.08 (95% CI 1.45 - 2.97). Conclusions: A telehealth care intervention markedly increased the frequency of home BP self- monitoring, electronic data sharing, and data-driven BP medication changes, even though only a minority of TC patients received the intervention.