Specialty pharmacy turnaround time impediments, facilitators, and good practices.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving specialty medications have conditions that are often complex, high cost, and high need. Prompt treatment initiation is essential for the appropriate management of many conditions treated by specialty products. Improving the turnaround time (TAT) of specialty pharmacy prescriptions helps ensure patients receive the medication they need in the necessary time frame to optimize health outcomes. Despite a clinical justification for improved TAT, there is a gap in the literature describing what factors impact these times. OBJECTIVE: To determine factors that may influence specialty pharmacy TATs and to identify good practices that specialty pharmacies use to improve TAT. METHODS: This qualitative study used 4 focus groups with specialty pharmacy subject matter experts. Each focus group represented different specialty pharmacy types, including health system, payer-associated, retail chain, and independent specialty pharmacies. Attitudes, beliefs, and experiences regarding specialty pharmacy TAT were captured. Open-ended questions and prompts eliciting impediments, facilitators, and good practices associated with specialty pharmacy TAT were asked of participants. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Fifteen individuals participated across 4 focus groups: payer-associated (n = 4), independent (n = 3), health system (n = 5), and retail chain (n = 3) specialty pharmacies. Average TATs varied across specialty pharmacy type and by prescription type (clean vs intervention). Several interconnected themes were identified, including barriers with health benefits formulary management, prior authorization delays, differences in requirements between managed care organizations, and miscommunication with physicians, among others. Five subthemes were identified during the discussion of factors influencing TAT, including patient characteristics, pharmacy characteristics, provider characteristics, clinical situations, and health benefit design and formulary considerations. Pharmacy workflow improvements through technology integration are thought to improve TAT. In addition, participants noted facilitators including specialization among pharmacists and technicians in certain diseases, particularly hepatitis C and cancer. Some good practices included using patient financial advocates, technology integration, and a structured patient onboarding process, which were found to minimize delays caused by prior authorization, communication, and formularies. CONCLUSIONS: A multitude of factors impacting specialty pharmacy prescription TAT were identified. Multidisciplinary coordination between pharmacies, physicians, and managed care organizations is essential to ensure patients receive medications in the necessary time frame to optimize health outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted with support from Pfizer.

Recommendations for selecting drug-drug interactions for clinical decision support.

PURPOSE: Recommendations for including drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in clinical decision support (CDS) are presented. SUMMARY: A conference series was conducted to improve CDS for DDIs. A work group consisting of 20 experts in pharmacology, drug information, and CDS from academia, government agencies, health information vendors, and healthcare organizations was convened to address (1) the process to use for developing and maintaining a standard set of DDIs, (2) the information that should be included in a knowledge base of standard DDIs, (3) whether a list of contraindicated drug pairs can or should be established, and (4) how to more intelligently filter DDI alerts. We recommend a transparent, systematic, and evidence-driven process with graded recommendations by a consensus panel of experts and oversight by a national organization. We outline key DDI information needed to help guide clinician decision-making. We recommend judicious classification of DDIs as contraindicated and more research to identify methods to safely reduce repetitive and less-relevant alerts. CONCLUSION: An expert panel with a centralized organizer or convener should be established to develop and maintain a standard set of DDIs for CDS in the United States. The process should be evidence driven, transparent, and systematic, with feedback from multiple stakeholders for continuous improvement. The scope of the expert panel's work should be carefully managed to ensure that the process is sustainable. Support for research to improve DDI alerting in the future is also needed. Adoption of these steps may lead to consistent and clinically relevant content for interruptive DDIs, thus reducing alert fatigue and improving patient safety.