RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To describe the financial implications, efficiency, and patient access to care with the use of a pharmacist-physician covisit model in a primary care practice. SETTING: A rural satellite practice of a large, teaching, multidisciplinary, family medicine organization. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Mountain Area Health Education Center (MAHEC) is a large, multisite, family medicine teaching practice. Our site is a rural practice of MAHEC that serves western North Carolina. PRACTICE INNOVATION: Pharmacist-physician covisit model. EVALUATION: Fourteen half-days of the covisit model from June 1, 2016, to January 31, 2017, were evaluated. Change in estimated clinic revenue was assessed for the physician only, separate pharmacist and physician visits, and the covisit model. Number and types of visits billed before and after implementation of the covisits were used to evaluate efficiency, and number of available appointments was used to evaluate patient access to care. RESULTS: Compared with physician billing alone, covisits generated an additional $4924.41 in 14 half-days or $158,291.04 over 1 year. Compared with separate visits, the covisit model increased estimated clinic revenue by $2757.89 over the 14 half-days and $88,646.47 over 1 year. During the pilot period of the covisit model, the pharmacist and physician combined billed a total of 189 visits, compared with 164 visits on matched days with separate visits. With covisits, more high-complexity codes and initial Medicare Annual Wellness Visits were billed. The physician was able to see an additional 1.3 patients per half-day in the covisit model compared with separate visits, and there was an average of 3.2 open physician appointments per half-day with covisits compared with 1.4 with separate visits. CONCLUSION: Compared with both the physician-only and the separate-visit models, the covisit model is projected to substantially increase clinic revenue. In this model, more patients can be seen, higher-complexity visits are billed, and there are more available appointments.
Asunto(s)
Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria/organización & administración , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/organización & administración , Farmacéuticos/organización & administración , Médicos/organización & administración , Atención Primaria de Salud/organización & administración , Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria/economía , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/economía , Humanos , Modelos Organizacionales , North Carolina , Atención Primaria de Salud/economía , Desarrollo de Programa , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Población RuralRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A pharmacist-physician covisit model in which patients see both a pharmacist and physician on the same day was established in a primary care practice. Previously, patients were seen in a referrals-based model in which providers referred patients for clinical pharmacy services on a different day. OBJECTIVE: To assess access to clinical pharmacy services in a pharmacist-physician covisit model compared to a referrals-based model. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed for patients who were seen by physicians on pre-specified half-days of clinic before and after implementation of the covisit model. Covisit model half-days between June 29, 2018 and September 30, 2018 and matched half-days from 2015 were included. Charts were reviewed to determine if patients scheduled to see the physician would benefit from clinical pharmacy services, including being seen for chronic disease management, eligible for a Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV), prescribed medications that required counseling, had an adverse medication-related event, or had adherence concerns. Those eligible for clinical pharmacy services were further reviewed to determine if the patient interacted with a pharmacist within three months of their visit. RESULTS: Prior to implementation of the covisit model, 123 patient visits were completed on the pre-specified half-days. Of these, 61 patients (49.6%) were deemed eligible for clinical pharmacy services. In the covisit model, 149 patients were seen by the physician, of which 69 patients (46%) were eligible for clinical pharmacy services. More patients in the covisit cohort went on to interact with a pharmacist (56 patients, 81% vs. 10 patients, 16%, adjusted OR = 32.98, 95% CI [8.89-122.39]). The most common reasons patients were identified for clinical pharmacy services were eligibility for AWV, hypertension, and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: A pharmacist-physician covisit model significantly increased accessibility to clinical pharmacy services compared to a referrals-based model.
Asunto(s)
Servicio de Farmacia en Hospital , Médicos , Anciano , Humanos , Medicare , Farmacéuticos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Mountain Area Health Education Center, Inc. and Shoulder to Shoulder have partnered on medical brigades in rural Honduras since 2005, with pharmacy learner participation beginning in 2007. This study assesses the value of this experience to pharmacy learners and their contribution to a brigade's success. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Pharmacy learners and faculty, family medicine residents and faculty physicians, student volunteers, and other health care professionals participate in two-week medical brigades each February and August. Since 2011, brigades have been based out of Camasca, a small town in rural, southwest Honduras. February brigade teams conduct home visits, while August brigades consist primarily of mobile clinics. In both situations, the pharmacy team prepares, dispenses, and counsels on medications. Participants from three trips were surveyed. FINDINGS: All pharmacy learners agreed the brigade contributed to improvements in their skills and competence as pharmacists. Brigade members agreed that pharmacy learners made valuable contributions, particularly in counseling patients, maintaining an organized workflow, and assisting in activities outside of pharmacy services. All respondents agreed that pharmacy learners were necessary to a trip's success. SUMMARY: These international medical brigades were impactful educational experiences for pharmacy learners. Brigade participants viewed pharmacy learners as essential team members.
Asunto(s)
Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Misiones Médicas/estadística & datos numéricos , Percepción , Servicios Farmacéuticos/normas , Estudiantes de Farmacia/psicología , Humanos , Internacionalidad , Satisfacción en el Trabajo , Misiones Médicas/organización & administración , Servicios Farmacéuticos/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudiantes de Farmacia/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
UNLABELLED: Delayed neurologic sequelae occur in up to 40% of severe carbon monoxide (CO) poisonings. Conflicting clinical data support the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy in the acute treatment of CO poisoning. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether oxygen therapy reduces neurologic sequelae after CO poisoning in mice. METHODS: Male Swiss-Webster mice were exposed to CO at 1,000 ppm for 40 minutes and then 50,000 ppm until loss of consciousness (LOC) (4-9 additional minutes). Total time of both phases of CO exposure was 40-49 minutes. Treatment included HBO with 3 atmospheres (ATA) 100% oxygen, normobaric oxygen (NBO) with 1 ATA 100% oxygen, or ambient air 15 minutes after LOC. All animals underwent passive avoidance training and memory was assessed by measuring step-down latency (SDL) and step-up latency (SUL) seven days following CO exposure. RESULTS: Carbon monoxide poisoning induced significant memory deficits (SDL(CO) = 156 sec; SUL(CO) = 75%) compared with nonpoisoned (NP) animals (SDL(NP) = 272 sec; SUL(NP) = 100%). Both HBO and NBO did not prevent these neurologic sequelae. Furthermore, no significant neurobehavioral differences were found between HBO and NBO. Histologic examination of the CA1 layer of the hippocampus for pyknotic cells showed significant damage from CO in the air-treated animals (9.6%) but not in the nonpoisoned animals (3.8%). No significant neuroprotection was seen histologically with NBO and HBO compared with ambient air. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that HBO is not effective in preventing neurologic sequelae in mice and that there is no benefit of HBO over NBO following severe CO neurotoxicity.