Defining the value of faculty primary care clinical pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Demonstrating the value of comprehensive medication management (CMM) within clinical faculty sites is a challenge when balancing patient volume with academic responsibilities. Utilizing an evidence-based implementation system for CMM, faculty primary care clinical pharmacists (PCCPs) standardized CMM within their practice sites. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this project was to define the value of faculty PCCPs. METHODS: An Ambulatory Care Summit was hosted to identify opportunities for consistency of CMM. Following the summit, the CMM implementation team (faculty PCCPs and project manager) utilized CMM implementation tools from the Comprehensive Medication Management in Primary Care Research Team. Additionally, a strategic plan was developed to enhance practice management, improve fidelity, and determine key performance indicators (KPIs). Five faculty-mentored student projects assessed value of faculty-delivered CMM in primary care clinics. Data included medication adherence metrics, clinic quality metrics, diabetes metrics, acute healthcare utilization rates, and a physician satisfaction survey. RESULTS: Among those receiving CMM, adherence improved 14% (P = 0.022), 119 clinic quality metrics were achieved, HbA1c ≤ 9% improved 45% (p < 0.001), average HbA1c decreased by 1.73% (p < 0.001), and medication preventable acute care utilization within the referral reason decreased. Over 90% of physicians surveyed agreed the faculty PCCP is a valuable team member, improved patients' health, and improved effectiveness/efficiency. Four student posters were presented at national conferences and 18 student pharmacists were engaged in various aspects of the project. CONCLUSION: Incorporating CMM at faculty primary care clinics provides value. To demonstrate this value, faculty must align KPIs with institution-specific payer contracts.

Practical strategies to enhance resident engagement in clinical quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Engaging residents in meaningful quality improvement (QI) is difficult. Challenges include competing demands, didactics which lack connection to meaningful work, suboptimal experiential learning, unclear accountability, absence of timely and relevant data, and lack of faculty coaches and role models. Various strategies to address these challenges for engagement have been described, but not as a unified approach. This paper describes a bundle of practical strategies to address common challenges to resident engagement in QI, illustrated through the experience of one residency education program. METHODS: 62 categorical residents in the University of Missouri Internal Medicine residency participated in a longitudinal QI curriculum integrated into residency clinic assignments with dedicated QI work sessions and brief just-in-time didactics with mentorship from faculty coaches. Residents completed at least two PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycles for their projects. The experience included clear expectations and tools for accountability. Project criteria included importance to patients, residents, and the institution. Residents had access to data related to their own practice. A pre-post survey asked residents to self-assess their level of interest and engagement in QI on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 = least desired and 5 = most desired result. Data were analyzed by paired t-test. RESULTS: All 62 residents participated in the program as members of ten QI teams. 40/62 residents completed both pre- and post-surveys. Items related to self-assessment of QI in clinical work all changed in the desired direction: likelihood of participation (3.7 to 4.1, p = 0.03), frequency of QI use (3.3 to 3.9, p = 0.001), and opinion about using QI in clinical work (3.9 to 4.0, p = 0.21). Resident assessment of QI priority in clinical work did not change. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented a practical strategies bundle to overcome common challenges to successfully engaging residents in clinical quality improvement. These strategies included QI work integrated into routine clinical assignments, just-in-time didactics, experiential learning with clear expectations and strategic project selection, timely and pertinent data from the residents' own practice, and real-time faculty coaching.

Providing Comprehensive Medication Management in Telehealth.

The goal of this white paper is to provide direction for clinical pharmacists providing telehealth. Telehealth care is rapidly emerging to improve patient access to health care and optimize patient health outcomes. With the increasing ability to access electronic health record portals, as many as 75 million telehealth encounters are expected in North America annually. Although electronic "point of access" undoubtedly increases the use of medical and pharmacy services, the real value of telehealth lies in improved access to patients in remote areas lacking adequate medical and pharmacy services and to high-risk patients requiring frequent monitoring. This document is intended to serve as a guide for those interested in or already using telehealth to provide direct patient care. Specifically, it focuses on general concepts of telehealth and demonstrates how the delivery of comprehensive medication management (CMM) by telehealth aligns with the Standards of Practice for Clinical Pharmacists set forth by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. Although clinical pharmacists must be appropriately credentialed and privileged to provide CMM, their process of care must also be adapted to suit the remote patient. Patient assessment, evaluation of medication therapy, development and implementation of a plan of care, follow-up, monitoring, and documentation of all processes of care are influenced by the technology available, the collaborations established, and the applicable regulations and requirements for telehealth practice.

Implementation and evaluation of activities to foster a sense of community among pharmacy students.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of a series of team-based instructional activities on students' sense of community for pharmacy students assigned to the main and distance program sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In conjunction with a teaching objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) conducted at the program's distance site, several team-based sense of community activities were completed. The classroom and school community inventory (CSCI) was adapted and administered to students prior to and following all learning activities to measure course and program sense of community. RESULTS: Pre- and post-surveys were completed by 116 students. Course and program sense of community significantly increased among students at the distance site (p = 0.007 and p = 0.008, respectively). No significant changes were found for students assigned to the main site. CONCLUSION: For programs with multiple sites, activities designed to enhance sense of community and conducted at the distance site are effective for students assigned to the distance site.

The CHADS2versus the new CHA2DS2-VASc scoring systems for guiding antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation: review of the literature and recommendations for use.

The association of atrial fibrillation and resultant thromboembolic stroke is readily recognized in the published literature. However, the identification and weight of other risk factors that increase stroke risk are varied. To predict which patients are at greatest risk for thromboembolic stroke, numerous risk stratification schemas have been developed to guide thromboprophylactic treatment decisions. The well-known CHADS(2) scoring system incorporates risk factors such as congestive heart failure, hypertension, age 75 years or older, diabetes mellitus, and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack. Recently, a novel risk stratification model, CHA2DS2 -VASc, has entered the literature and international guidelines, prompting further review of newly added risk factors-age 65-74 years, presence of vascular disease, and female sex-and the increased allotment of 2 points (vs 1 point in CHADS2) for age 75 years or older. The rationale for CHA2DS2 -VASc, as put forth by its authors, is that other risk assessment models omit important risk factors, have low predictive ability, and categorize too many patients as intermediate risk, leaving the choice of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy to the discretion of the clinician. Although CHA2DS2 -VASc readily identifies those patients truly at low risk, it classifies more patients as high risk who would then receive anticoagulation therapy. Therefore, implementation of this risk schema warrants further evaluation, especially when weighing the risk for bleeding and the risk for stroke. This critical review provides practitioners with an understanding of the literature that prompted the inclusion of these new risk factors and increased point allocations, compares and contrasts the risk schemas, and reviews national and international guidelines, thereby equipping the health care provider with the knowledge to aid clinical decision-making.

Bleeding incidence with concomitant use of antidepressants and warfarin.

INTRODUCTION: Bleeding is the major complication associated with warfarin therapy. Some antidepressants are also associated with increased bleeding risk. Warfarin and antidepressants are used frequently in combination, but it is unclear whether concomitant use increases the risk of bleeding beyond that with warfarin alone. The primary goal of this study was to determine whether the use of warfarin and an antidepressant increases the risk for bleeding outcomes compared with the use of warfarin alone. The secondary goal was to characterize the risk of bleeding in warfarin-treated patients taking one specific class of antidepressant, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, study of warfarin-treated patients prescribed (n = 46) and not prescribed (n = 54) an antidepressant. Medical records over 6 months were reviewed for international normalized ratio values, medical history, bleeding type and incidence, and hospitalization due to bleeding. Patients were included in the antidepressant group if they were taking concomitant warfarin and antidepressant therapy consistently for a period of 6 months and in the control group if they were not taking an antidepressant with warfarin. RESULTS: The use of any antidepressant with warfarin was not associated with the incidence of any bleeding or major bleeding during the 6-month period. However, the use of an SSRI with warfarin was associated with an increase in any bleeding event (odds ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-6.4 P = 0.04). The use of an SSRI remained a significant predictor of bleeding after accounting for other factors associated with bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these data, it is important to clarify the interaction between warfarin and SSRIs in regard to bleeding risk given the high frequency of their concomitant use.