Impact of SMART Goals on Diabetes Management in a Pharmacist-Led Telehealth Clinic.

Background: Although there is evidence demonstrating successful implementation of SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound) goals in clinical settings, their impact on improving diabetes control has not been well-established. Objective: The primary objective was to determine the association between setting SMART goals and change in A1c among a Veteran population. Methods: This was an IRB-approved retrospective, case-control study. Patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) managed virtually by a Clinical Pharmacy Specialist at a VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic were eligible for inclusion. The electronic medical record was used to identify patients that set a SMART goal for DM management during the study timeframe. These patients were matched to a similar cohort of patients that did not set a SMART goal. Results: There were 100 patients included in the study. Goal A1c was achieved in 30% of patients in the SMART goal group compared with 24% of patients in the control group. There was a 1.2% reduction in A1c from baseline to 3 months in the SMART goal group vs .85% in the control group (P = .287). The mean number of medication changes per patient was 1.7 in the SMART goal group vs 2.1 in the control group (P = .174). Patients in the SMART goal group set an average of 1.5 SMART goals during the study period. Conclusion: Overall, patients that set SMART goals had clinically meaningful A1c lowering. Setting SMART goals for DM management in agreeable patients during diabetes telehealth visits may lead to fewer medication changes and improved diabetes control.

Pharmacist Screening for Risk of Osteoporosis in Elderly Veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of pharmacist screening for osteoporosis risk with increased bone mineral density (BMD) testing. DESIGN: Prospective, quasi-experiment. SETTING: Veterans Affairs medical center Community Living Centers (CLC), home-based primary care, and outpatient geriatric clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a routine pharmacist interaction were included. Exclusion criteria included hospice, dialysis, and respite care. INTERVENTIONS: Risk assessment with recommendations communicated by progress notes to consider BMD testing or interventions in the settings described. A second phase of the project was conducted in CLC patients to evaluate the effect of an interdisciplinary team with the inclusion of a physician to assess clinical appropriateness of interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Proportion of patients meeting guidelines for BMD testing and change in proportion of patients with BMD testing ordered after intervention. Secondary measures included response to recommendations and initiation of osteoporosis pharmacotherapies. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were included in the first phase of the project, with 120 (54.8%) identified as candidates for BMD testing with recommendations documented. Of this population, 5 patients without previous dual-energy absorptiometry results had BMD testing ordered (P = 0.6). In the second phase, 22 high-risk patients in the CLC met criteria for BMD testing, with 14 determined to have reasons for not pursuing BMD testing. CONCLUSION: Most patients in the settings described met guidelines for BMD testing. Pharmacist recommendations to consider BMD testing did not increase the rate of testing. Including a physician on an interdisciplinary team appeared to help determine appropriateness and improve the rate of testing, though the increase in testing was not statistically significant.

The future of pain pharmacy: driven by need.

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing has increased by ~400% over the past 20 years in the US and has been correlated with dramatic increases in accidental overdose-related deaths. Emerging evidence of serious dose-dependent side effects of opioid analgesics has led to recommendations from multinational pain societies and governments to decrease opioid doses and increase referrals to pain specialists. Demand for pain specialists of all types has increased; however, training programs for health care professionals struggle to satisfy this need. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to highlight the role of clinical pharmacy specialists in pain management and to discuss available residency training programs and subspecialties within each program. METHODS: We surveyed all eleven accredited pharmacy postgraduate year two (PGY-2) Pain and Palliative Care Residency programs in the US. Program information was derived from interviews with residency directors, current residents, program brochures, and residency Web sites. Data collected included core, elective, and longitudinal rotations, with the time frame dedicated to each experience. Primary practice areas, as well as inpatient vs outpatient focus, were also documented. Additionally, a review of the available literature was completed to determine the areas in greatest need for future pain specialists. RESULTS: Pharmacy pain specialists have been referenced as highly effective additions to interdisciplinary pain management teams. Pharmacists provide expertise in complex pain medication management, which remains the primary focus of most chronic pain encounters. The PGY-2 programs surveyed differ considerably, with the majority providing significant emphasis to either acute pain management or palliative care with brief or limited exposure to chronic pain management. Four of the eleven programs require 2 months of chronic pain management; however, only two of the eleven programs identify chronic pain management as a primary practice setting. DISCUSSION: Pain specialists in all fields are in high demand; however, the need for health care professionals specialized in chronic pain management probably exceeds that for professionals specialized in acute pain management and palliative care combined. This disparity between disease prevalence and specialty training programs is not reflected in the current residency training structure, nor have additional training programs arisen to fill this critical need. CONCLUSION: Health care systems will continue to struggle to meet the demands of patients with chronic pain until significant emphasis is placed on the education and training of health care professionals in this area. Clinical pharmacy should aim to meet this demand through the expansion of PGY-2 training programs and improved didactic education in pharmacy school that reflects the increased need for chronic pain specialists.