A checklist for a consistent, comprehensive medication review.

INTRODUCTION: Medicare Advantage Part D plans and stand-alone Part D prescription drug plans are required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to have qualified providers, including pharmacists, and offer annual comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) for eligible Medicare beneficiaries. Although guidance on the components of a CMR is available, providers have flexibility in how to deliver the CMR to patients and which content to cover. With the variety of patient needs, CMR content is not always consistently delivered in practice. Our research group performed an extensive evaluation to create and test an ideal CMR content coverage checklist for CMR provision. CMR CONTENT CHECKLIST: The CMR Content Checklist can be used for quality improvement purposes to evaluate the comprehensiveness of pharmacist services-to assess either within pharmacist variation across patients or within organization variations between pharmacists or sites. INCORPORATING THE CMR CONTENT CHECKLIST INTO PRACTICE: Testing in a real-world setting demonstrated where gaps in service coverage existed. The CMR Content Checklist could be used as the first step for quality improvement given that it provides details on the key aspects of the service that can inform quality measure development.

It is time for a new comprehensive medication review quality measure.

Medication therapy management (MTM) services include comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs), which have been completed with millions of patients since their inception in the United States. The current MTM quality measure focuses on whether CMRs were completed (ie, the CMR completion rate). However, this process measure does not assess quality of care, or patient-reported or other outcomes of CMRs, and, therefore, does not reward MTM providers for improving health outcomes. In this viewpoint article, we present 3 reasons that shape our argument for new MTM quality measures and offer recommendations on next steps to achieve this. DISCLOSURES: Dr Vaffis is an employee of Clinical Outcomes Solutions and discloses this was work was completed previously during her employment at the University of Arizona. Dr Dhatt is an employee of Janssen and discloses this was work was completed previously during her employment at the University of Arizona. Dr Anderson is an employee of The Freedom Fund and discloses this was work was completed previously during her employment at the University of Arizona. Dr Black is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Dr Campbell received funding from Pharmacy Quality Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and SinfoniaRx and discloses this work was completed previously during his employment at the University of Arizona. Dr Kolobova is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Dr Hines is an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Castora-Binkley is an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Nelson is an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Axon received funding from Pharmacy Quality Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and SinfoniaRx. Dr Warholak received funding from Pharmacy Quality Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and SinfoniaRx and discloses this was work was completed previously during her employment at the University of Arizona.

Qualitative analysis of telephonic comprehensive medication review content and delivery.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) are offered to eligible Medicare beneficiaries to improve patient medication knowledge, identify, and address medication concerns, and empower medication self-management. However, the specific content of real-world CMRs is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively assess CMR content and delivery among telephonic CMR providers. METHODS: This qualitative thematic analysis used transcriptions of audio-recorded patient interactions during CMRs from 3 telephonic medication therapy management provider organizations. Data were qualitatively analyzed using the inductive saturation model to code emergent themes by independent reviewers who met to agree themes through consensus. Intercoder reliability was calculated using Krippendorf alpha. RESULTS: Overall, 32 CMR transcripts from 3 organizations were analyzed in 13 rounds of coding. Intercoder reliability was >95%. A total of 21 themes were identified across 4 stages: call opening (4 themes), medication reconciliation (5 themes), clinical assessments and guidance (8 themes), and call closing (4 themes). The call opening stage included: service explanation; insurance coverage/cost; identity/privacy/recording; and patient's medication management. Medication reconciliation included: drug name, dose, frequency, and indication; medication deletion and addition; over-the-counter and vaccination assessment; drug efficacy assessment; and prescribing provider assessment. Clinical assessments and guidance included 4 core clinical assessments: allergy assessment; drug therapy problem assessment; drug-related adverse events; and medication modification; and 4 additional assessments: clinical/therapeutic guidance; cost savings guidance; diet/exercise/lifestyle guidance; and optional clinical and behavioral assessments. Call closing included: documentation; primary care provider confirmation; patient satisfaction; and call transfer. There were variations among organizations in the depth that CMR components were covered. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest provider organizations are including components that meet Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services goals for CMRs. Yet, variations among organizations indicate a need for standardization and patient-centered measures to ensure appropriate CMR components are covered, while maintaining flexibility for pharmacists to provide patient-oriented CMRs that meet patients' clinical needs.

Trends in telephonic comprehensive medication review in the United States from 2000 to present: a scoping literature review.

BACKGROUND: Although comprehensive medication review (CMR) services have been shown to provide value to patients and payers, the extent of uniformity in service delivery is unknown. A variety of standards and recommendations are available from academic and professional sources, but variation in service provision is an important consideration when attempting to measure or compare service quality nationally. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and summarize trends in the peer-reviewed and gray literature describing telephonic CMR delivery and content. METHODS: A scoping review of peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted to quantify and qualify trends in CMR service. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts from 9 bibliographic databases and selected gray literature sources in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and an internally developed protocol. Inclusion criteria for the review were English language; discussion of telephonic CMR service in the United States; research, legislation, or guidelines that describe CMR content coverage requirements for payment; and publication from the year 2000 to the present. Data relating to publication type, study design, setting, region, and themes of CMR content were collated into a Microsoft Excel data extraction form. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted, and key findings and concepts were reported contextually. RESULTS: Of 374 identified documents screened, 15 were included in this scoping review and thematic analysis. The following characteristics of CMRs were identified: content, coverage, eligibility, frequency, process, and responsiveness. All published documents (n = 15, 100%) included a discussion of CMR content, and 14 sources (93%) addressed process elements of providing a CMR. Discussion of other themes varied in frequency across documents, ranging from 3 articles (20%) addressing organizational goals for CMR to 12 articles (80%) including elements of responsiveness. Within-theme variation was also observed for several CMR content areas. CMR process was the most heterogeneous theme with topics ranging from access to patient health records to pharmacist training. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of telephonic CMR comprised a small but steadily increasing portion of the medication therapy management literature. Publications since 2015 have shown an increasing consensus of CMR content and purpose. Per the identified literature, there is an ongoing demand for higher-quality, more holistic CMRs, but there is no consensus on how to measure CMR quality. Future work should include engaging with CMR experts to understand variability in measures of CMR success.

Key informant perspectives about telephonic comprehensive medication review services in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) are provided by providers such as pharmacists to eligible beneficiaries. Although CMRs have been shown to provide value to patients, little is known about the service uniformity, quality, and content of CMRs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the current state of CMR services from diverse stakeholder perspectives and describe variation in responses to content and delivery of telephonic CMR services. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 key informants. The interview guide contained 6 key questions with additional probing questions. Transcripts were analyzed using the inductive saturation model and phenomenological approach to code emergent themes, which were iteratively refined until saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Key informants included CMR payers (n = 3), providers (n = 5), and standards-setting organizations (n = 2). Ten themes about CMRs emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) definition, (2) organizational goals, (3) content, (4) eligibility, (5) frequency, (6) acceptance and completion, (7) process and personnel, (8) quality assurance, (9) preparation, and (10) future directions. CMR content descriptions were consistent across perspectives. Key informants described scenarios appropriate for expanded CMR eligibility criteria, although none were consistently reported. Providers emphasized patient CMR acceptance rates whereas payers and standard-setting organizations emphasized completion rates. Completion rates and adherence to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services standards were characterized as core organizational goals (n = 8), whereas patient satisfaction was less frequently identified (n = 4). A lack of incentive for CMR providers to follow-up with patients was a barrier to expanded services. Overall, key informants were dissatisfied with the CMR completion rate measure and would prefer measures focused on service quality and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: CMR services largely met perceived guidelines, with variation in value-added services. Key informants desired adoption of an actionable measure that is focused on quality rather than completion rate. To inform a quality measure, future research should analyze completed CMRs to determine the extent of variation in content and delivery.

Traversing the Quality Chasm: Revisiting the Framework for Pharmacy Services Quality Improvement.

DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this reflection. The authors have nothing to disclose.