Comprehensive Pharmacist-led Transitions-of-care Medication Management around Hospital Discharge Adds Modest Cost Relative to Usual Care: Time-and-Motion Cost Analysis.

Optimal medication management is important during hospitalization and at discharge because post-discharge adverse drug events (ADEs) are common, often preventable, and contribute to patient harms, healthcare utilization, and costs. Conduct a cost analysis of a comprehensive pharmacist-led transitions-of-care medication management intervention for older adults during and after hospital discharge. Twelve intervention components addressed medication reconciliation, medication review, and medication adherence. Trained, experienced pharmacists delivered the intervention to older adults with chronic comorbidities at 2 large U.S. academic centers. To quantify and categorize time spent on the intervention, we conducted a time-and-motion analysis of study pharmacists over 36 sequential workdays (14 519 min) involving 117 patients. For 40 patients' hospitalizations, we observed all intervention activities. We used the median minutes spent and pharmacist wages nationally to calculate cost per hospitalization (2020 U.S. dollars) from the hospital perspective, relative to usual care. Pharmacists spent a median of 66.9 min per hospitalization (interquartile range 46.1-90.1), equating to $101 ($86 to $116 in sensitivity analyses). In unadjusted analyses, study site was associated with time spent (medians 111 and 51.8 min) while patient primary language, discharge disposition, number of outpatient medications, and patient age were not. In this cost analysis, comprehensive medication management around discharge cost about $101 per hospitalization, with variation across sites. This cost is at least an order of magnitude less than published costs associated with ADEs, hospital readmissions, or other interventions designed to reduce readmissions. Work is ongoing to assess the current intervention's effectiveness.

Effect of the population health inpatient Medicare Advantage pharmacist intervention on hospital readmissions: A quasi-experimental controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The population health inpatient Medicare Advantage pharmacist (PHIMAP) intervention is a pharmacist-led, transitions-of-care intervention that aims to reduce hospital readmissions among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. PHIMAP includes inpatient pharmacist participation in interdisciplinary rounds, admission and discharge medication reconciliation, pharmacy staff delivery of discharge medications to the bedside, personalized discharge medication lists and counseling, and communication with outpatient pharmacists through an electronic health record. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the PHIMAP intervention on unplanned 30-day same-hospital readmissions among Medicare Advantage patients. METHODS: Those included were patients admitted to a large urban academic medical center between May 2018 and March 2020 who had a Medicare Advantage plan and were aged at least 18 years. A 2-group, quasi-experimental design was utilized. Control patients received the usual care, which included a best possible medication history and a postdischarge phone call. A multivariable logistic regression model was estimated to predict unplanned 30-day same-hospital readmissions. This study was a Hypothesis Evaluating Treatment Effectiveness study. RESULTS: In total, 884 patients were included. The majority were White (59.0%), non-Hispanic (87.7%), English speaking (90.5%), and older adults (median age, 75 years; interquartile range, 70-83 years). We detected no statistically significant association between the PHIMAP intervention and unplanned 30-day same-hospital readmissions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.56-1.52). After adjusting for patient demographics and clinical covariates, significant predictors of 30-day readmissions included the number of emergency department/inpatient visits within 180 days prior to index admission (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.11-1.77); discharge to a post-acute care facility, such as an inpatient rehabilitation facility, long-term acute care facility, or skilled nursing facility (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.06-2.66); hospital length of stay in days (OR = 1.04, 95% CI=1.01-1.07); and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.01-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Significant predictors of readmissions among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were consistent with greater illness severity, including a recent history of prior hospital utilization, a discharge to post-acute care facility (vs home), a longer length of hospital stay, and a higher comorbidity burden. Although we detected no statistically significant association between PHIMAP and unplanned 30-day same-hospital readmissions, differences in study group assignment based on the day of hospital discharge (weekend vs weekday) was a noted limitation of this study. Future studies of inpatient pharmacist-led interventions should plan to minimize the risk of selection bias due to differences in the time of patient discharge. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging under award number R01AG058911 (to Pevnick) and the UCLA Clinical Translational Science Institute (UL1 TR001881). The sponsor had no role in the design and conduct of the study, nor the writing of this report.

Tools and tactics for postdischarge medication management interventions.

PURPOSE: To identify interventions for organizational pharmacist-leaders and frontline pharmacy staff to optimize peri- and postdischarge medication management. SUMMARY: An evidence-based toolkit was systematically constructed on the basis of findings of 3 systematic overviews of systematic reviews. The interventions were reviewed by a technical expert panel and categorized as either tools or tactics. The identified tools are instruments such as diagrams, flow charts, lists, tables, and templates used in performing a distinct operation, whereas identified tactics reflect broader methods (eg, reduced dosing frequency). Tools and tactics were chosen on the basis of their potential to improve postdischarge medication management, with a focus on interventions led by pharmacy staff that may reduce hospital readmissions among older, sicker patients. Overall, 23 tools and 2 tactics were identified. The identified tools include items such as education, text messaging, and phone calls. The tactics identified are dose simplification and monetary incentives. Practical information has also been provided to facilitate implementation. CONCLUSION: Several tools and tactics are available to optimize peri- and postdischarge medication management. Organizational pharmacist-leaders and frontline pharmacy staff can implement these interventions to improve patient outcomes.

The high-value pharmacy enterprise framework: Advancing pharmacy practice in health systems through a consensus-based, strategic approach.

PURPOSE: The high-value pharmacy enterprise (HVPE) framework and constituent best practice consensus statements are presented, and the methods used to develop the framework's 8 domains are described. SUMMARY: A panel of pharmacy leaders used an evidence- and expert opinion-based approach to define core and aspirational elements of practice that should be established within contemporary health-system pharmacy enterprises by calendar year 2025. Eight domains of an HVPE were identified: Patient Care Services; Business Services; Ambulatory and Specialty Pharmacy Services; Inpatient Operations; Safety and Quality; Pharmacy Workforce; Information Technology, Data, and Information Management; and Leadership. Phase 1 of the project consisted of the development of draft practice statements, performance elements, and supporting evidence for each domain by panelists, followed by a phase 2 in-person meeting for review and development of consensus for statements and performance elements in each domain. During phase 3, the project cochairs and panelists finalized the domain drafts and incorporated them into a full technical report and this summary report. CONCLUSION: The HVPE framework is a strategic roadmap to advance pharmacy practice by ensuring safe, effective, and patient-centered medication management and business practices throughout the health-system pharmacy enterprise. Grounded in evidence and expert recommendations, the statements and associated performance elements can be used to identify strategic priorities to improve patient outcomes and add value within health systems.

A systematic overview of systematic reviews evaluating interventions addressing polypharmacy.

PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy. SUMMARY: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched for SRs evaluating interventions addressing polypharmacy in adults published from January 2004 to February 2017. Two authors independently screened, appraised, and extracted information. SRs with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores below 8 were excluded. After extraction of relevant conclusions from each SR, evidence was summarized and conclusions compared. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality. Six SRs met the inclusion criteria, 4 of which used meta-analytic pooling. Five SRs focused on older adults. Four were not restricted to any specific disease type, whereas 1 focused on proton pump inhibitors and another focused on patients with severe dementia. Care settings and measured outcomes varied widely. SRs examining the impact on patient-centered outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, patient satisfaction, and utilization, found inconsistent evidence regarding the benefit of polypharmacy interventions, but most concluded that interventions had either null or uncertain impact. Two SRs assessing medication appropriateness found very low-quality evidence of modest improvements with polypharmacy interventions. CONCLUSION: An overview of SRs of interventions to address polypharmacy found 6 recent and high-quality SRs, mostly focused on older adults, in which both process and outcome measures were used to evaluate interventions. Despite the low quality of evidence in the underlying primary studies, both SRs that assessed medication appropriateness found evidence that polypharmacy interventions improved it. However, there was no consistent evidence of any impact on downstream patient-centered outcomes such as healthcare utilization, morbidity, or mortality.

Optimizing utilization of beta-lactam surgical prophylaxis through implementation of a structured allergy assessment tool in a presurgical clinic.

In patients with ß-lactam allergies, administration of non-ß-lactam surgical prophylaxis is associated with increased risk of infection. Although many patients self-report ß-lactam allergies, most are unconfirmed or mislabeled. A quality improvement process, utilizing a structured ß-lactam allergy tool, was implemented to improve the utilization of preferred ß-lactam surgical prophylaxis.

A Time and Motion Study of Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Obtaining Admission Medication Histories.

Pharmacists' admission medication histories (AMHs) are known to reduce adverse drug events (ADEs). Pharmacist-supervised pharmacy technicians (PSPTs) have also been used in this role. Nonetheless, few studies estimate the costs of utilizing PSPTs to obtain AMHs. We used time and motion methodology to study the time and cost required for pharmacists and PSPTs to obtain AMHs for patients at high risk for ADEs. Pharmacists and PSPTs required 58.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.9-70.1) and 79.4 (95% CI, 59.1-99.8) minutes per patient, respectively (P = 0.14). PSPT-obtained AMHs also required 26.0 (95% CI, 14.9-37.1) minutes of pharmacist supervision per patient. Based on 2015 US Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data, we estimated the cost of having pharmacists and PSPTs obtain AMHs to be $55.91 (95% CI, 44.9-67.0) and $45.00 (95% CI, 29.7-60.4), respectively, which included pharmacist supervisory cost, per patient (P = 0.32). Thus, we found no statistically significant difference in time or cost between the two provider types. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:180-183.

Potential benefit of electronic pharmacy claims data to prevent medication history errors and resultant inpatient order errors.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the potential of a widely available source of electronic medication data to prevent medication history errors and resultant inpatient order errors. METHODS: We used admission medication history (AMH) data from a recent clinical trial that identified 1017 AMH errors and 419 resultant inpatient order errors among 194 hospital admissions of predominantly older adult patients on complex medication regimens. Among the subset of patients for whom we could access current Surescripts electronic pharmacy claims data (SEPCD), two pharmacists independently assessed error severity and our main outcome, which was whether SEPCD (1) was unrelated to the medication error; (2) probably would not have prevented the error; (3) might have prevented the error; or (4) probably would have prevented the error. RESULTS: Seventy patients had both AMH errors and current, accessible SEPCD. SEPCD probably would have prevented 110 (35%) of 315 AMH errors and 46 (31%) of 147 resultant inpatient order errors. When we excluded the least severe medication errors, SEPCD probably would have prevented 99 (47%) of 209 AMH errors and 37 (61%) of 61 resultant inpatient order errors. SEPCD probably would have prevented at least one AMH error in 42 (60%) of 70 patients. CONCLUSION: When current SEPCD was available for older adult patients on complex medication regimens, it had substantial potential to prevent AMH errors and resultant inpatient order errors, with greater potential to prevent more severe errors. Further study is needed to measure the benefit of SEPCD in actual use at hospital admission.

Risk evaluation and mitigation strategies: impact on patients, health care providers, and health systems.

PURPOSE: To describe the impetus for and evolution, components, and potential impact on patients, health care providers, and health systems of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for managing known or potential serious drug risks. SUMMARY: A 2006 report from the Institute of Medicine criticizing FDA for drug withdrawals due to safety problems provided the impetus for FDA to enhance postmarketing surveillance and to require REMS for medications with actual or potential safety concerns. Components of REMS may include medication guides, patient package inserts, communication plans for health care providers, and elements to ensure safe use (e.g., special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, use of patient registries). Recent increases in the number of drugs with REMS requirements, MedWatch alerts, and the development of the new Sentinel Initiative reflect FDA's commitment to drug safety. Patients may be overwhelmed by information about drugs with REMS requirements, which could deter the use of potentially beneficial therapies. Pharmacists can help patients weigh the risks and benefits of drug therapy. Pharmacists, other health care providers, and health systems may find REMS requirements challenging, but FDA is cognizant of the need to balance the goals of ensuring drug safety and providing patient access to drugs without placing an undue burden on the health system. CONCLUSION: The goal of improving drug safety is sought by the FDA, patients, health care providers, and health systems alike. Collaboration among health care providers may provide efficiencies in meeting FDA REMS requirements.