Impact of a pharmacist-led, primary medication nonadherence intervention program on prescription fills in underserved patient populations.

BACKGROUND: Poor medication adherence is a critical barrier to improving patient health. Patients who are medically underserved are prone to a chronic disease state diagnosis and experience different social determinants of health. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the impact of a primary medication nonadherence (PMN) intervention on prescription fills in underserved patient populations. METHODS: This randomized control trial included 8 pharmacies that were chosen based on current poverty demographic data for each region in a metropolitan area as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. Randomization was completed by a random number generator into (1) an intervention group or (2) a control group: (1) initiation of a PMN intervention and (2) no intervention offered on PMN. The intervention consists of a pharmacist addressing and resolving patient-specific barriers. Patients were enrolled in a PMN intervention at day 7 of a newly prescribed medication or a medication that has not been used in the previous 180 days, not being obtained for therapy. Data were collected to determine the number of eligible medications or therapeutic alternatives that were obtained after a PMN intervention was initiated and if that medication was refilled. RESULTS: The intervention group consisted of 98 patients and the control group had 103. Rate of PMN was higher (P = 0.037) in the control group (71.15%) than the intervention group (47.96%). Cost and forgetfulness encompassed 53% of the barriers experienced by patients in the interventional group. The most commonly prescribed medication classes associated with PMN included statins (32.98%), renin angiotensin system antagonists (26.18%), oral diabetes medications (25.65%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and corticosteroid inhalers (10.47%). CONCLUSION: The rate of PMN had a statistically significant decrease when a pharmacist-led, evidence-based intervention was conducted with the patient. Although this study depicted a statistically significant decrease in PMN rates, larger studies are needed to strengthen the correlation between the decrease in PMN and a pharmacist-led, PMN intervention program.

Evaluating advanced pharmacy technician roles in the provision of point-of-care testing.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the impact of pharmacy technician-supported point-of-care testing (POCT), including sample collection, on the number of cholesterol screenings performed in a community pharmacy setting. Secondary objectives include assessment of provider perceptions and patient satisfaction of POCT when executed by a technician. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Thirty-two community pharmacies in 1 regional division of a large community pharmacy chain in Tennessee; 16 participated in a certified pharmacy technician (CPhT) training program, and 16 did not. PRACTICE INNOVATION: CPhTs supported POCT service delivery limited to the nonprofessional, technical tasks (e.g., sample collection, quality assurance). EVALUATION: The primary objective was evaluated by comparing the total number of screenings for control and intervention sites. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used. Both secondary measures were assessed via anonymous, Likert-type scale questionnaires. RESULTS: Intervention pharmacies performed 358 screenings, whereas control pharmacies performed 255 screenings (16.8% difference). The patient perception survey found that 94% (149 of 159) of those who received screening with CPhT involvement agreed or strongly agreed that the service was valuable, and 70% (111 of 159) reported that they are likely to follow up with their primary care providers to discuss the results. Furthermore, most patients were in agreement that they were overall satisfied with the screening services provided by the CPhT (94%, 149 of 159), and the CPhT was professional while performing the screening (95%, 151 of 159). The provider perceptions survey on service implementation found that most pharmacy personnel agreed or strongly agreed that CPhTs performing POCT was feasible, appropriate, and acceptable. CONCLUSION: This study provided preliminary data that technician-supported POCT may positively impact the number of screenings provided. In addition, provider perceptions were positive, and patients felt satisfied with the studied technician model.

A Pilot Study Exploring the Impact of a Primary Medication Non-Adherence Intervention among Four Chronic Disease States in One Regional Division of a Large Community Pharmacy Chain.

There is a 12.2% rate of primary medication non-adherence (PMN) among community pharmacy patients. The Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) has developed a standardized definition of PMN to aid stakeholders in addressing PMN. However, little research had been conducted to date on how to address PMN. The objective of the study was to determine the impact of an evidence-based adherence intervention program on PMN rates among four chronic disease states and to identify and characterize factors associated with PMN. Patients at risk of PMN were randomized into a control or intervention group. Those in the intervention group received a live call from a pharmacist to determine reason for and to discuss solutions to overcome PMN. Subjects included adult patients with newly prescribed medications used to treat diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study occurred in six pharmacies across one regional division of a national supermarket, community pharmacy chain. Prescriptions were considered newly initiated when the same drug, or its generic equivalent, had not been filled during the preceding 180 days. Prescriptions were considered at risk if they had not been obtained by day 7 of it being filled. Prescriptions were considered PMN if the patient had not obtained it, or an appropriate alternative, within 30 days after it was prescribed. During the 4-month intervention period, 203 prescriptions were included in the study with 94 in the intervention group and 109 in the control group. There was a 9% difference (p = 0.193) in PMN between the intervention group (44 patients, 47%) and the control group (61 patients, 56%). The therapeutic class most at risk of PMN was statins (34%). Cost (26%) and confusion/miscommunication (15%) were the most common reasons for PMN within the intervention group. Among the four chronic disease states studied, the intervention had the largest impact on hypertension. The PMN intervention did not significantly decrease PMN rates.