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.

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.

A Pilot Mixed-Methods Study to Establish the Clinical Usefulness of a Chronic Pain Profile (CPP) for Pain Management.

The Chronic Pain Profile (CPP) was developed as a tool for patients to document types and levels of use for all pain management strategies used. This pilot mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative methods) study aimed to assess the perceived clinical usefulness of the CPP and identify potential areas of difficulty using the CPP among a sample of pharmacists. Data were obtained from an online survey of pharmacists licensed to practice in Arizona. Quantitative analysis included assessing the clinical usefulness of the CPP using 10 numerical items (scores ≥50% = useful), 5 ordinal items (scores ≥ 4 out of 5 = useful), and 11 open-response items. Qualitative analysis was conducted by two independent researchers who coded the comments and identified key themes through consensus. Data were collected for 33 individuals. Mean usefulness scores ranged from 66.6 ± 22.4 to 80.9 ± 23.5, and three of the five ordinal items had a median score ≥ 4. Three key themes (and subthemes) were identified: favorable features of the CPP, which included promoting patient advocacy and saving time when accessing pain information; using the CPP, which included evaluating of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the pain management approach and identifying gaps in patient knowledge; and limitations of the CPP, which included absence of customization, interpretation issues, complexity and wording issues, and concerns of internal consistency and reliability. This pilot study provides initial evidence of the CPP's clinical usefulness that could ultimately be used to help manage pain and improve health outcomes. Further analyses are needed to assess the CPP's validity and explore its use in wider populations of patients with pain.

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.

Association of Self-Reported Functional Limitations among a National Community-Based Sample of Older United States Adults with Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The characteristics of self-reported functional limitations among older United States (US) adults with pain are currently unknown. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the characteristics associated with functional limitations among non-institutionalized older (≥50 years) US adults with pain using 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data. Eligible subjects were alive for the calendar year, aged ≥50 years, and experienced pain within the past four weeks. Hierarchical logistic regression models were utilized to determine significant characteristics associated with functional limitations (outcome variable; yes, no). Functional limitations included difficulty with bending, stooping, climbing stairs, grasping objects, lifting, reaching overhead, standing for long periods of time, or walking. Extrapolation of national data values was possible by adjusting for the complex MEPS design. We found approximately 22 million of the 57 million older US adults (≥50 years) who reported pain had a functional limitation in 2017. Characteristics associated with functional limitations included: gender, race, ethnicity, employment status, marital status, pain intensity, physical health, number of chronic conditions, and frequent exercise status. Knowledge of characteristics associated with functional limitations may provide an opportunity to identify and resolve gaps in patient care among this population.

Predictors of pain severity among community-dwelling older adults with pain in the United States: Findings from a cross-sectional, retrospective study using 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine predictors of pain severity among older United States (US) adults with pain.This cross-sectional, retrospective study utilized 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data. Eligible participants were alive for the calendar year, aged ≥50 years, and reported pain in the past 4 weeks. Hierarchical logistic regression models, adjusting for the survey design, were used to identify significant predictors of pain severity (i.e., extreme/quite a bit or moderate/little pain).An estimated 14,250,534 adults aged ≥50 with pain reported extreme/quite a bit of pain. Many variables were associated with extreme/quite a bit of pain, including: age 50 to 64 vs ≥65 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.22-1.82); males vs females (AOR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67-0.95); white race vs others (AOR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.92); married vs other marital status (AOR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.08-1.57); income <200% vs ≥200% federal poverty level (AOR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.06-1.60); employed vs unemployed (AOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.37-0.60); limitation vs no limitation (AOR = 2.64, 95% CI = 2.09-3.33); 0, 1, 3, or 4 vs ≥5 chronic conditions (AOR ranged from 0.39 for 0 conditions to 0.77 for 4 conditions); excellent/very good or good vs fair/poor perceived physical health status (AOR ranged from 0.28 for excellent/very good to 0.40 for good); smokers vs non-smokers (AOR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.27-1.93); exercise versus no exercise (AOR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.62-0.88); and South vs West census region (AOR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.04-1.74).This study found several characteristics could predict pain severity among older US adults who reported extreme/quite a bit of pain. These characteristics may guide specific areas of focus to improve patients' pain management.