Strategies for implementing the Appointment-Based Model at a rural independent chain of community pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: The Appointment-Based Model (ABM) is a care model that helps community pharmacists streamline their medication dispensing workflow while simultaneously integrating patient care into the medication preparation process through medication synchronization. Implementation of the ABM has varied across community pharmacies. Further studies that identify tailored implementation approaches are needed to support broad adoption of the ABM in practice. OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine facilitators and barriers to ongoing adoption and implementation of the ABM at a small chain of rural independent pharmacies where adoption has stalled and (2) to identify implementation strategies to support further adoption of the ABM at these pharmacies METHODS: This project was an exploratory, mid-implementation study. Semistructured interviews were conducted with pharmacy staff who participated in the ongoing implementation and use of the ABM at the pharmacies. Interviews elicited stakeholder-centered perspectives on (1) experiences with the ABM to date, (2) processes and roles for the ABM, and (3) opinions on how implementation of the ABM could be improved at the pharmacies. Rapid qualitative assessment methodology was used for analysis to identify facilitators and barriers and to select implementation strategies. RESULTS: Thirty-one pharmacy personnel were interviewed: pharmacists (n = 10), pharmacy technicians (n = 7), and fill clerks (n = 14). The research team identified 6 facilitators and 4 barriers to the implementation of the ABM at the pharmacies. Five implementation strategies were selected based on the facilitators and barriers: (1) capture and share local knowledge across pharmacy sites, (2) conduct educational outreach visits, (3) conduct ongoing training, (4) prepare patients to be active participants in the ABM, and (5) organize clinician implementation team meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Development of a stakeholder-driven implementation approach may support further implementation and adoption of the ABM in practice.

Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy, defined as the use of multiple drugs or more than are medically necessary, is a growing concern for older adults. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 1, 1986 to June 30, 2013) to identify relevant articles in people aged > 65 years. AREAS COVERED: We present information about: i) prevalence of polypharmacy and unnecessary medication use; ii) negative consequences of polypharmacy; and iii) interventions to improve polypharmacy. EXPERT OPINION: International research shows that polypharmacy is common in older adults with the highest number of drugs taken by those residing in nursing homes. Nearly 50% of older adults take one or more medications that are not medically necessary. Research has clearly established a strong relationship between polypharmacy and negative clinical consequences. Moreover, well-designed interprofessional (often including clinical pharmacist) intervention studies that focus on enrolling high-risk older patients with polypharmacy have shown that they can be effective in reducing aspects of unnecessary prescribing with mixed results on distal health outcomes.

Improving adverse-drug-reaction reporting in ambulatory care clinics at a Veterans Affairs hospital.

The detection of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by a traditional passive reporting system and by a method involving patient and provider interviews was studied. The study sample consisted of randomly selected outpatients seen by their primary care provider during scheduled appointments in January and February 2001 at a Veterans Affairs medical center. After ambulatory care clinic sessions, patients and providers were asked (by telephone and in person, respectively) to identify potential ADRs. Also obtained were demographic data, information about drug regimens, and the severity and management of each ADR. A standardized ADR-assessment tool was used to determine the severity of each reported reaction and its causal relationship with the medication. A total of 198 patients were included. Of these, 51 (26%) had one or more ADRs. The patient and provider interviews identified a total of 83 ADRs, compared with 1 ADR identified by the passive reporting system. When providers were made aware of the ADRs they had not identified, changes were made to the patient's medication regimen in 34% of cases. The risk of an ADR was not associated with age, number of medications, or provider type. Direct patient and provider interviews yielded a significantly higher rate of ADR detection in an ambulatory care setting than did a passive ADR-reporting system.