RESUMO
Background: Although electronic prescription cancellation such as via CancelRx can facilitate critical communication between prescribers and pharmacy staff about discontinued medications, there is little work that explores whether CancelRx meets the needs of pharmacy staff users. Objective: This study leverages qualitative interviews with pharmacy staff to address the following question: When medication changes are made by a prescriber using CancelRx, what information is needed by pharmacy staff to make correct and effective decisions in their roles in medication management? Methods: We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of interviews with 11 pharmacy staff members (pharmacists and pharmacy technicians) across three outpatient community pharmacy sites within an academic health care system. Results: Three information needs themes were consistently identified by both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians: prescriber intent when initiating the CancelRx, clinical rationale for the medication change, and intended medication regimen. Notably, both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians often reported seeking multiple information needs not fully addressed by CancelRx in the electronic health record (EHR) to achieve the shared goals of correct dispensing of medications and supporting patient self-management. Conclusions: Our qualitative analysis reveals that outpatient community pharmacy staff in an academic health care system often seek additional information from the (EHR) following medication changes communicated by CancelRx to meet their information needs. Ideally, the prescriber would provide sufficient information through CancelRx to automatically identify all discontinued prescriptions. These limitations highlight the need for design features that support routine communication of needed information at the time of a medication change, such as structured data elements.
RESUMO
Importance: The effect of shared decision-making (SDM) and the extent of its use in interventions to improve cardiovascular risk remain unclear. Objective: To assess the extent to which SDM is used in interventions aimed to enhance the management of cardiovascular risk factors and to explore the association of SDM with decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factors, and health behaviors. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, a literature search was conducted in the Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for articles published from inception to June 24, 2022, without language restrictions. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SDM-based interventions with standard of care for cardiovascular risk factor management were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The systematic search resulted in 9365 references. Duplicates were removed, and 2 independent reviewers screened the trials (title, abstract, and full text) and extracted data. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factor outcomes, and health behavioral outcomes. Results: This review included 57 RCTs with 88â¯578 patients and 1341 clinicians. A total of 59 articles were included, as 2 RCTs were reported twice. Nearly half of the studies (29 [49.2%]) tested interventions that targeted both patients and clinicians, and an equal number (29 [49.2%]) exclusively focused on patients. More than half (32 [54.2%]) focused on diabetes management, and one-quarter focused on multiple cardiovascular risk factors (14 [23.7%]). Most studies (35 [59.3%]) assessed cardiovascular risk factors and health behaviors as well as decisional outcomes. The quality of studies reviewed was low to fair. The SDM intervention was associated with a decrease of 4.21 points (95% CI, -8.21 to -0.21) in Decisional Conflict Scale scores (9 trials; I2 = 85.6%) and a decrease of 0.20% (95% CI, -0.39% to -0.01%) in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (18 trials; I2 = 84.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of the current state of research on SDM interventions for cardiovascular risk management, there was a slight reduction in decisional conflict and an improvement in HbA1c levels with substantial heterogeneity. High-quality studies are needed to inform the use of SDM to improve cardiovascular risk management.