Barriers and best practices related to documentation of electronic care plans: A survey of community-based pharmacies in 4 states.

BACKGROUND: The provision of enhanced services within community-based pharmacy is increasing. However, an opportunity remains to improve efficient documentation of services, and barriers to implementation exist. Electronic care (eCare) planning is the act of using health information technology to submit a pharmacist eCare plan for a patient encounter, similar to a Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan note. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to identify barriers and best practices related to documentation of eCare plans within community-based pharmacies participating in 4 Community Pharmacy Enhanced Services Networks (CPESN). METHODS: One of two 24-question electronic surveys was distributed to pharmacies in CPESN Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Ohio. Pharmacies submitting fewer than 10 eCare plans in the previous quarter received a survey to assess barriers to implementation; pharmacies submitting 10 or more eCare plans received a survey to assess best practices for implementation. Surveys remained open for 14 days, with a reminder sent on days 7 and 12. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. An independent-samples t test assessed for between-group differences in the overall knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 63 responses were received (Barriers = 19; Best Practices = 44). Best Practices pharmacies earned a higher overall knowledge score than Barriers pharmacies (9.26 vs. 7.26 out of 13 points, P = 0.001). Frequently reported barriers were staffing resources (n = 11, 57.9%), perceived time commitment (n = 8, 42.1%), and lack of payment (n = 8, 42.1%). Most Best Practices pharmacies agreed or strongly agreed that they involve pharmacists (n = 36, 81.8%) and student pharmacists (n = 33, 75.5%) in eCare planning processes. Common foci of eCare plans by Best Practice pharmacies were medication synchronization (n = 35, 79.5%), drug therapy problems (n = 29, 65.9%), adherence assessment (n = 28, 63.6%). CONCLUSIONS: A difference in knowledge and perceptions exists between pharmacies who regularly eCare plan and those who do not. Observed trends in knowledge, perceptions, barriers, and best practices should be used to create a training to increase eCare planning quality and consistency.

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment in a Retail Pharmacy Setting: The Pharmacist's Role in Identifying and Addressing Risk of Substance Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study determined the feasibility of interviewing and screening patients presenting to a retail pharmacy using Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) interview protocols, and to compare SBIRT results to a risk score calculated from Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data. METHODS: Using the NIDA Quick Screen and NIDA Modified-ASSIST (NM-ASSIST) and the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT), retail pharmacy customers were screened for substance and alcohol use disorder and tobacco use. PDMP reports were collected on subjects and a PDMP-risk score was calculated based on the numbers of Schedule II-V prescriptions and prescribers over the previous 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients were included in this study (67% response rate). SBIRT screening revealed that 20.8% were at-risk for substance use disorder (SUD), 16.7% for alcohol use disorder, and 37.5% used tobacco. Overall, 33.3% of subjects were at-risk for SUD or alcohol use disorder. Fifty percent of subjects required education and/or brief intervention based on their responses, 37.5% of all subjects were deemed at-risk based on their PDMP-risk score, and 60% of patients who were risk-positive by SBIRT screening were also PDMP-risk positive. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of performing SBIRT-based screenings in a retail pharmacy setting and combining these with PDMP-risk analysis to screen patients for prescription and illicit drug misuse. Findings from this study will inform the design of larger multisite studies, which should validate these findings and include follow-up analysis to assess the efficacy of intervention on this patient population.

Useful resources for members serving on a curriculum committee in schools and colleges of pharmacy.

The curriculum committee has an important role in the design and delivery of a Doctor of Pharmacy program. The primary purpose of this article is to identify relevant resources for members to utilize to be active participants in a school or college of pharmacy curriculum committee. The resources presented are focused around the following seven key curricular management concepts: orientation to curriculum, syllabus review, teaching methods, curriculum review, interprofessional education, student workload, and policy development, as these are common agenda items for a committee meeting. Several curricular resources used by other health care disciplines were included to promote collaboration with interprofessional education activities. Awareness of such resources may benefit members to achieve optimal educational outcomes for the program.

Efinaconazole and Tavaborole.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to review the safety, efficacy, and role of efinaconazole and tavaborole in the treatment of onychomycosis. SUMMARY: Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nail caused by dermatophytes, yeasts, and nondermatophyte fungi. Distal and lateral subungual onychomycosis (DLSO) accounts for the majority of the cases. These infections cause structural damage to the nail which makes treatment difficult. Both oral and topical agents exist for the treatment of onychomycosis. Oral medications have generally been more effective, yet adverse effects and drug interactions limit their use in some patients. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agents in the United States for oral therapies include terbinafine, itraconazole, and griseofulvin. The only topical product available up to recently was ciclopirox. CONCLUSION: This article will review efinaconazole and tavaborole, 2 new topical antifungal agents released in 2014.