Physician and nurse practitioner perspectives of a modified Routine Opioid Outcome Monitoring (ROOM) Tool.

Introduction The Routine Opioid Outcome Monitoring (ROOM) Tool was developed for use in community pharmacies in Australia. It facilitates pharmacists' screening and brief interventions regarding an individual's opioid use for chronic pain. At our academic teaching hospital, the ROOM Tool was adapted to incorporate a communication tool that includes a pharmacist's assessment and recommendations for primary care providers. This modified ROOM Tool was implemented as part of usual care in our outpatient pharmacies; however, the value to primary care providers is unknown. Aim The aim of this study was to determine primary care provider perspectives on the modified ROOM Tool. Methods Focus groups were conducted with primary care providers from an Academic Family Health Team. The focus group encompassed topics related to the positive and negative aspects of the modified ROOM Tool in supporting the care of patients using opioids for chronic pain. Qualitative content analysis of transcripts was performed to identify themes. Results Three focus groups were conducted with a total of six participants. Four themes emerged: (i) Facilitators to using the tool, (ii) Barriers to using the tool, (iii) Recommendations for improvement, (iv) Impact of the tool on patient care and safety. Discussion The ROOM Tool paired with the communication tool supports collaboration between pharmacists and primary care providers. The communication tool standardises the approach for communicating the pharmacist's assessment and recommendations. Recommendations to refine this modified ROOM Tool may increase its utility to primary care providers and enhance the impact on patient care and safety.

Deprescribing in a family health team: a study of chronic proton pump inhibitor use.

BACKGROUND Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are often used inappropriately, without an indication, or for longer durations than recommended. Few tools exist to guide reassessment of their continued use and deprescribing if required. We aimed to reduce inappropriate drug use by developing and implementing a PPI deprescribing tool and process in a family medicine unit. ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEM Primary care providers of adults taking a PPI for 8 weeks with an upcoming periodic health examination were reminded to reassess therapy via electronic medical record (EMR) messaging. A PPI Deprescribing Tool was uploaded into the EMR as a second reminder and to guide reassessment and deprescribing where indicated. Ten weeks after the examination a chart review assessed changes to PPI use. A follow up survey of providers assessed the utility and barriers to implementing the Deprescribing Tool. RESULTS Forty-three of 46 patients on PPIs (93%) had their PPI reassessed, resulting in 11 patients (26%) having their PPI deprescribed. Strategies for Improvement Routine reassessment of long-term medications is often overlooked because of extensive demands on primary care providers' time. Deprescribing likely improved because potentially eligible patients were identified to the provider and a tool was provided at the time of the encounter to guide the deprescribing process. LESSONS Reassessment and deprescribing of PPIs can be supported by implementing a standardised process and use of guidance tools for clinicians. Providers found the timely and selective reminder message to deprescribe the most useful component of the intervention. KEYWORDS proton pump inhibitor; deprescribing; reassessment; primary care; medication therapy management; gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Evaluation of a Community Pharmacy-Based Screening Questionnaire to Identify Patients at Risk for Drug Therapy Problems.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if a short screening questionnaire can identify patients at risk for drug therapy problems (DTPs) in a community pharmacy setting. DESIGN: Self-administered questionnaire. SETTING: Three community pharmacies in Saskatoon, Canada. PATIENTS: Forty-nine adults who were picking up a refill prescription for a medication that had remained stable over the past 6 months (i.e., no changes to drug, dose, or regimen) during 4 consecutive weeks at each of the three pharmacies between November 2013 and February 2014. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All patients completed a self-administered screening questionnaire and underwent a blinded comprehensive medication assessment with a clinical pharmacist. Agreement between the screening questionnaire responses and responses based on information from the medication assessment were assessed with Cohen's κ coefficient. The DTPs identified during the medication assessments were categorized in one of the eight standard DTP categories: unnecessary drug therapy, inappropriate drug, subtherapeutic dose, supratherapeutic dose, drug therapy required, adverse drug reaction, noncompliance, and other or unsure. The DTPs were also assigned a severity-mild, moderate, or severe-using adapted Schneider criteria. The number and severity of DTPs identified were compared among patients categorized as high versus low risk for DTPs as determined by the questionnaire responses. Of the 49 patients who completed the study, 18 (37%) were high risk and 31 (63%) low risk. The agreement between risk categorization based on the screening questionnaire and medication assessment was very good (κ = 0.91, p<0.01). Also, patients identified as high risk on the screening questionnaire had a mean of 3.7 (p<0.01) more DTPs than low-risk patients. Seventeen (94%) of the 18 high-risk patients had at least one moderate or severe DTP compared with 15 (48%) of the 31 low-risk patients. CONCLUSION: The screening questionnaire was a reliable method for identifying patients in community pharmacies who have a large number of DTPs.

Implementation of a self-administered questionnaire to identify patients at risk for medication-related problems in a family health center.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if a self-administered questionnaire can improve the identification of patients at risk for medication-related problems (MRPs) compared with usual methods of referral to a pharmacist. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled study. SETTING: Multiprofessional primary care clinic at a tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred ninety-four ambulatory patients aged 18 years or older who were taking at least two drugs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients completed a five-item, self-administered questionnaire modified from a tool that was previously validated in another population and statistically correlated with the risk of MRPs. Of 194 patients who completed the questionnaire, 89 were randomized to the control group (referral by usual methods) and 105 were referred according to their responses on the questionnaire (intervention group). Primary outcomes were the rate of referral and the number of at-risk patients identified. Referral rates were higher with the questionnaire than with usual methods (20% vs 6%, p=0.003). Of five patients referred by usual methods, one was at risk for MRPs according to questionnaire results. Of 84 patients in the control group who were not referred, 12 (14%) were at risk according to the questionnaire results; this finding suggested that several at-risk patients who were not referred by usual methods might have benefitted from a referral for a pharmacist's assessment. CONCLUSION: This self-administered medication risk assessment questionnaire effectively complemented the usual practices for identifying and referring patients at risk for MRPs.

The "glitazones": rosiglitazone and pioglitazone.

Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone are two new additions to the therapeutic options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. These agents differ from our current therapies in their mode of action. They have potential non-glucose lowering effects that may reduce cardiovascular risk and are effective both as monotherapy and in combination with sulfonylureas, metformin, and insulin. They are generally well tolerated, with the main side effects being weight gain and fluid retention. However, special precaution is warranted in patients with congestive heart failure or hepatic disease, and monitoring of liver enzymes is recommended for the first year of therapy. Despite their effectiveness, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone remain second-line agents to metformin and glyburide, agents that have demonstrated efficacy in decreasing the microvascular and macrovascular complications associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus.