Using quality improvement frameworks to develop, implement, and evaluate a novel ambulatory oncology pharmacy practice model: A descriptive example.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: To describe the application of the Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement framework in the development, implementation, and evaluation of a novel pharmacy practice model in ambulatory oncology. SUMMARY: Four iterations of the Plan-Do-Study-Act framework were completed to develop a patient-facing, pharmacist-led ambulatory oncology clinic program. The clinic provided care to patients with prostate cancer on oral anticancer therapy. Metrics were collected throughout all stages of development to inform target processes for improvement. The pharmacist saw 136 patients between July 2019 and January 2023, resulting in 464 total encounters. The pharmacist provided clinical interventions and counseling to patients newly starting on oral anticancer therapy and those established on therapy using a longitudinal model of care. CONCLUSION: Application of the Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement framework to a novel pharmacy practice model supported the development, evaluation, and sustainability of a pharmacist-led ambulatory oncology clinic providing care to patients with prostate cancer on oral anticancer therapy.

Establishment of a Clinical Pharmacist-Led Multiple Myeloma Clinic with Collaborative Prescribing Model at the National Center for Cancer Care and Research in Qatar.

BACKGROUND: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a chronic and incurable hematologic malignancy that is prevalent among the elderly. Interprofessional patient care showed superiority over physician-only care in multiple settings, including MM. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of CP-led clinic and CPs interventions on MM patient care. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Real-world analysis of ambulatory patients with MM showed that clinical pharmacists (CPs) were central to the optimization of therapy and adherence to treatment schedules and supportive medications. PRACTICE INNOVATION: The CP-led MM Clinic was established with a collaborative prescribing agreement (CPA) in 2022 at the National Center for Cancer Care and Research (NCCCR) in Qatar and was the first of its kind in the MENA region. This CPA allowed CPs to issue refills for supportive medications and order required laboratory tests. EVALUATION METHODS: Data collected included the number of CP interventions, refills ordered by CPs, documentation of patient education, and medication reconciliations. The data were retrospectively collected and analyzed comparing ambulatory patients with MM treated before (2021) to those treated after the clinic implementation in 2022. RESULTS: The study population comprised 20 patients. A higher number of CPs interventions were documented post-clinic than pre-clinic (343 vs. 76, P=0.004), with earlier initiation of bisphosphonate post-clinic (25 vs. 206 days, P = 0.008). There were also significant improvements in the introduction of risk appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis (43% vs. 6%, P=0.001) as well as vitamin D and calcium supplementation (100% vs. 68%, P=0.02) post-clinic. Twenty-two medication refills for supportive medications and eight pre-chemotherapy laboratory investigations were ordered by CPs. CONCLUSION: The CP-led clinic provided a timely link to care optimization for ambulatory MM patients. This innovative CPA model implemented in the clinic could potentially be applied to different cancer settings to optimize safe and effective patient care.

The impact of a pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinic on medication adherence and laboratory monitoring.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact that a pharmacist-managed oral anticancer clinic has on patient adherence to oral anticancer therapy in regard to medication adherence and adherence to lab monitoring. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed for patients prescribed abiraterone, enzalutamide, or ibrutinib within the study time period. The primary outcome was assessing medication adherence by comparing the medication possession ratio (MPR) before (Phase 1) and after (Phase 2) initiation of the pharmacist-led oral anticancer therapy clinic. The secondary outcome was assessing lab monitoring adherence by patients and providers in Phase 1 and Phase 2. This will be done by assessing whether labs were ordered at the appropriate time frame by oncology providers, as well as whether or not the patient came and got these labs drawn. This study will also examine outcomes related to the pharmacist-led oral anticancer therapy clinic (phase 2) for descriptive purposes. RESULTS: A total of 189 charts were analyzed with 134 excluded and 55 included (25 patients in phase 1 and 30 patients in phase 2). Independent sample t-test analyses revealed a statistically significant increase (t(30.57) = -1.99; p = 0.027) in the MPR ratio between phase 1 (mean = 0.98, SD = 0.13) compared to phase 2 (mean = 1.04, SD = 0.08). For patient adherence to lab monitoring, there was a statistically significant improvement between phase 1 and phase 2 for patients on abiraterone (21.9% vs 67%; t(25) = -5.73; p < 0.001) and enzalutamide (35.7% vs. 90.5%; t(8) = -3.26; p = 0.006). However, for patients on ibrutinib, there was a slight decline in lab monitoring adherence between phase 1 and phase 2 but this effect was not statistically significant (56.2% vs. 51%; t(17) = 0.58; p = 0.283). Similar results were shown for provider adherence to lab monitoring. Descriptive outcomes showed that the pharmacist had, on average, 6.7 encounters per patient with the majority being phone and face-to-face appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study demonstrated that a pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinic can improve MPR ratios and patient adherence to oral anticancer medication regimens. In addition, patient and provider lab monitoring adherence was improved for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Improvement in patient and provider lab monitoring adherence for ibrutinib was not shown, possibly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, relatively small sample size, and retrospective nature of this study. The results of this study support that overall, a pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinic can significantly improve patient outcomes, which aligns with previous smaller studies that have shown similar benefits.

"Brown Bag Clinic": A Pharmacist-led Approach to Reduce Heart Failure Hospital Readmission.

Objectives: Heart failure (HF) affects approximately 6 million in the United States and despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), still more than 20% of patients are readmitted within 30 days.1,2 This study evaluated the impact of a "pharmacist-led HF Brown Bag Clinic" (BBC) on HF patient outcomes including readmissions and mortality. Methods: This retrospective study, conducted at an academic medical center, included adult patients 18 to 89 years old with HF presenting to the BBC 7-14 days post HF hospitalization. Those failing to attend the BBC within 30 days of hospital discharge were in the control group. Our electronic medical records were used to capture patients' baseline characteristics and describe pharmacists' interventions. Thirty- and ninety-day post-discharge HF readmission and all-cause mortality were evaluated. Results: A total of 32 patients met the inclusion criteria; 15 receiving intervention and 17 controls. A total of 18 HF hospital readmissions occurred, 4 (22%) readmissions in the intervention group and 14 (78%) in the control group (p= 0.06). Hospital readmissions within 30 days and 90 days were greater in the control group compared with the intervention group (18% vs. 7% and 41% vs. 21% respectively). Conclusion: A pharmacist-led post-discharge clinic demonstrated numerically fewer HF hospital readmissions compared with a scheduled but "no show" control group.

Glycemic Control and Management in Pharmacist-Led Diabetic Clinic vs. Physician-Led Diabetic Clinic.

Background and Objectives: Globally, diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a life-threatening disease that, if it remains uncontrolled, can lead to mortality or serious complications. Despite the noticeable benefits of clinical pharmacist in managing diabetes, some institutions in Saudi Arabia are reluctant to establish a pharmacist-led diabetic clinic for monitoring and follow-up. The objective of this study is to assess the glycemic control by comparing the reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) percentage between patients followed in the pharmacist-led diabetic clinics vs. those followed in physician-led diabetic clinics. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational study with a 12-month follow-up were used to detect the difference in the glycemic control by comparing the reduction in HbA1c percentage from the baseline, and average changes in HbA1c, fasting blood glucose (FBG), blood pressure (BP), and lipid panel between the two groups. The level of self-care was assessed by Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) Questionnaire. Results: The study involved 52 patients who visited the diabetic clinic at a community teaching hospital. Exactly 24 patients were followed by the pharmacist-led diabetic clinics, while 28 were followed by physician-led diabetic clinics. HbA1c baseline was 8.7% and 8.4% for pharmacist and physician, respectively. The average difference in HbA1c for the pharmacist-led diabetic clinics vs. the physician-led diabetic clinics was not statistically significant (8.67 vs. 8.56; p = 0.77). Moreover, no difference in the glucose profile, lipid panel, and blood pressure were seen between the two groups. However, the median HbA1c change from baseline between the two groups significantly favored the pharmacist-led clinic (0.7 vs. 0.003; p = 0.04).The average of responses in all four aspects of the SDSCA (diet, exercise, blood sugar testing, and foot care) was also higher among patients in the pharmacist-led diabetic clinic. Conclusions: Pharmacist-led diabetic clinics for glycemic control and follow-up showed efficient results that encourage the comprehensive and integral inter-professional patient care.