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.

Improving rating scales: Applying Rasch analysis to student pharmacists' attitudes towards herbal medications.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed the psychometric properties of a cross-sectional survey of student pharmacists' attitudes regarding herbal medications using a polytomous Rasch model. Seven items assessed students' attitudes towards herbal medications using a 6-point agreement scale (0 to 5). Student responses were reviewed to identify outliers and aberrant response patterns, assess scale fit, and perform item analysis. Scale performance was assessed to determine if response categories were independent and equally represented. Items were reviewed for model fit and construct validity with significant item gaps identified using a z-test. IMPACT: A total of 324 students completed the survey. The initial 6-point scale was analyzed. Student responses with outfit mean-square (MNSQ) values >5 were removed, yet the scale did not have appropriate functionality. The categories were merged to form a 4-point scale with no improvement. Therefore, two different 3-point scale options were analyzed: response categories of 0, 1 to 3, and 4 to 5; and response categories of 0, 1 to 4, and 5. With ten students removed, both 3-point scales met the requirements for functionality and all items exhibited good fit with MNSQ values between 0.6 and 1.4, person-separation value of 1.29, and person-reliability value of 0.62. RECOMMENDATIONS: Both 3-point scales met the requirements for Rasch analysis. The most optimal scale was the 0, 1 to 4, and 5 option. DISCUSSION: This study provides findings from the survey validity assessment alongside the survey results, which is useful for readers to have confidence in the quality of the study findings.

Evaluation of an Academic-Community Partnership to Implement MTM Services in Rural Communities to Improve Pharmaceutical Care for Patients with Diabetes and/or Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Although the current methods of medication therapy management (MTM) delivery have demonstrably improved therapeutic, safety, economic, and humanistic health outcomes, patient- and prescriber-level barriers persist, limiting its reach and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To assess telephonic- and community-based clinical pharmacy services in improving health indicators for rural, underserved patients. METHODS: In 2014, an established MTM provider created a novel, collaborative pilot program with independent retail and community health center pharmacies to provide comprehensive, telephonic MTM services to rural Arizonans. This pilot program used a combined telephonic- and community-based pharmacist approach in the provision of MTM services for rural, underserved Arizona populations. Adults with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension, seen by a prescriber or who filled prescriptions at a contracted, rural facility in 2014, were eligible to participate. Initial MTM telephonic consultations were conducted, and recommendations were communicated to patients' prescribers and/or pharmacists. Patients received a follow-up telephone call at standard intervals, depending on risk severity. RESULTS: A total of 517 patients participated, and 237 medication-related and 1,102 health promotion interventions were completed. Positive trends were observed in fasting blood glucose, postprandial glucose, and diastolic blood pressure. Broad variation in prescriber acceptance of pharmacist recommendations was observed (27%-60%). CONCLUSIONS: Study results provide initial evidence to support the efficacy of collaborative efforts in the provision of MTM services for improving health indicators and safety measures while potentially reducing health care disparities. While the results are encouraging, future research is warranted in more diverse populations and settings. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported in part by funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention via a multiyear, interagency grant from the Arizona Department of Health Services. The findings and conclusions presented in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the Arizona Department of Health Services. Study concept and design were contributed by M. Johnson, Jastrzab, Hall-Lipsy, Martin, and Warholak. M. Johnson took the lead in data collection, along with K. Johnson, Martin, Jastrzab, and Hall-Lipsy. Data interpretation was performed by Jastrzab, Warholak, and Taylor. The manuscript was written by K. Johnson, M. Johnson, and Jastrzab, along with the other authors, and revised by M. Johnson, Tate, and Taylor, along with Jastrzab, K. Johnson, and Hall-Lipsy. The data from this manuscript were previously presented in poster and podium format by Jastrzab and Johnson at the American Public Health Annual Meeting; Chicago, Illinois; October 31-November 4, 2015.

Documenting Stage 1 and 2 Meaningful Use criteria: A comparison of clinical pharmacists with other healthcare providers.

PURPOSE: Documentation of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Meaningful Use (MU) criteria for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus between clinical pharmacists and other healthcare providers was compared. METHODS: Patients seen at 8 clinics in a federally qualified health center who had type 2 diabetes mellitus and were seen by clinical pharmacists or other healthcare providers were randomly selected for inclusion in this retrospective study. Approximately half of the encounters were evaluated for Stage 1 MU compliance (encounters from October through December 2014), and half were evaluated for Stage 2 MU compliance (encounters from January through March 2015). Categorical and descriptive variables were analyzed by calculating frequencies and percentages. Chi-square tests were used to compare groups with an a priori level of significance set at 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 790 patients were seen by 46 providers, 8 (18%) of whom were clinical pharmacists. The study also included 24 medical doctors, 8 family nurse practitioners, 1 physician assistant, and 5 doctors of osteopathic medicine. Other healthcare providers more consistently documented 5 Stage 1 MU criteria than did clinical pharmacists. Clinical pharmacists more consistently documented 2 core objectives than did other healthcare providers. Otherwise, no significant differences in documentation were detected. CONCLUSION: Other healthcare providers more consistently documented 5 Stage 1 MU criteria than did clinical pharmacists. Clinical pharmacists more consistently documented 2 core objectives than did other healthcare providers.