Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm ; 26(7): 798-816, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32584678

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the subject of quality improvement principles and methods applied to pharmacy services and to describe a framework for current and future efforts in pharmacy services quality improvement and effective drug therapy management. BACKGROUND: The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy produced the Catalog of Pharmacy Quality Indicators in 1997, followed by the Summary of National Pharmacy Quality Measures in February 1999. In April 2002, AMCP introduced Pharmacy's Framework for Drug Therapy Management in the 21st Century. The Framework documents include a self-assessment tool that details more than 250 specific "components" that describe tasks, behaviors, skills, functions, duties, and responsibilities that contribute to meeting customer expectations for effective drug therapy management. FINDINGS: There are many opportunities for quality improvement in clinical, service, and cost outcomes related to drug therapy management. These may include patient safety; incidence of medical errors; adverse drug events; patient adherence to therapy; attainment of target goals of blood pressure, glucose, and lipid levels; risk reduction for adverse cardiac events and osteoporotic-related fractures; patient satisfaction; risk of hospitalization or mortality; and cost of care. Health care practitioners can measure improvements in health care quality in several ways including (a) a better patient outcome at the same cost, (b) the same patient outcome at lower cost, (c) a better patient outcome at lower cost, or (d) a significantly better patient outcome at moderately higher cost. Measurement makes effective management possible. A framework of component factors (e.g., tasks) is necessary to facilitate changes in the key processes and critical factors that will help individual practitioners and health care systems meet customer expectations in regard to drug therapy, thus improving these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement in health care services in the United States will be made in incremental changes that rely on a structure-process-outcome model. The structure is provided by evidence created from controlled randomized trials and other studies of care and system outcomes that are based on the scientific method. The process portion is created by the application of evidence in the form of clinical practice guidelines, clinical practice models, and self-assessment tools such as Pharmacy's Framework for Drug Therapy Management. Incremental changes in structure and process will result in the desirable outcome of meeting customer needs for more effective drug therapy and disease management. DISCLOSURES: Authors Richard N. Fry and Steven G. Avey are employed by the Foundation for Managed Care Pharmacy, a nonprofit charitable trust that serves as the educational and philanthropic arm of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy; author Frederic R. Curtiss performed the majority of work associated with this manuscript prior to becoming editor-in-chief of the Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy. This manuscript underwent blinded peer review and was subject to the same standards as every article published in JMCP.


Subject(s)
Patient Satisfaction , Pharmaceutical Services/standards , Pharmacists/standards , Professional Role , Quality Improvement/standards , Quality of Health Care/standards , Humans , Managed Care Programs/standards , Managed Care Programs/trends , Medication Errors/prevention & control , Medication Errors/trends , Medication Reconciliation/standards , Medication Reconciliation/trends , Pharmaceutical Services/trends , Pharmacists/trends , Quality Improvement/trends , Quality of Health Care/trends
3.
Can J Public Health ; 97(3): 171-6, 2006.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16827400

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In spite of national guidelines which do not recommend prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer or are inconclusive, Canadian men may be accessing the screening test. METHODS: For the purpose of informing prostate screening policy, cross-sectional self-reported data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (2000-2001) were analyzed to determine the lifetime and recent PSA screening prevalence of Canadian men aged 50 and older with no prostate cancer, and to explore the socio-demographic characteristics associated with ever being screened. Multivariate binomial regression analyses were used to calculate prevalence rate ratios as a measure of association between respondents' characteristics and PSA screening behaviour. RESULTS: Almost half of Canadian men over the age of 50 years (47.5%; 95% CI=46.4-48.5) reported receiving PSA screening during their lifetime. Seventy-two percent (71.8%) of PSA screening was performed within one year prior to the survey or recently. Lifetime prevalence was highest among men aged 60-69 (53.1%; 95% CI=51.1-55.1). Next to advanced age, having a family doctor was the most predictive of screening behaviour (PRR=1.83, p<0.01). Black ethnicity, a risk factor for prostate cancer, failed to be predictive of screening (PRR=1.04, NS). Not speaking French or English was strongly associated with not obtaining a PSA screen (PRR=0.66, p< or =0.01). INTERPRETATION: Our finding that Canadian men commonly reported PSA screening for prostate cancer is not congruent with national guidelines. While we wait for randomized controlled trial evidence of the effectiveness of PSA screening in reducing mortality due to prostate cancer, PSA screening has emerged as a public health issue.


Subject(s)
Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Algorithms , Canada , Cross-Sectional Studies , Guideline Adherence , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/standards , Middle Aged , Prostatic Neoplasms/prevention & control
4.
Chronic Dis Can ; 27(1): 25-33, 2006.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16672137

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to calculate the prevalence of multiple exposures to four modifiable risk factors (smoking, alcohol, physical inactivity and overweight) and to establish whether there are more Canadians with multiple risk factor exposures than those with singular ones. Weighted estimates of the prevalence of mutually exclusive risk factor clusters were calculated according to the Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 1.1 (2000). Confidence limits were estimated by bootstrap techniques. Findings indicate that 21.0 percent of Canadians have no risk factor exposures, 53.5 percent are physically inactive, 21.5 percent currently smoke, 44.8 percent are overweight, and 6.0 percent are high-risk drinkers. Compared to females, males are less physically inactive but more likely to smoke, have high alcohol intake and be overweight, across all age groups. At least one risk factor was present in 79.0 percent of Canadians and 39.0 percent have at least two coexistent exposures. The distribution of risk factor prevalences differed significantly by age, most peaking among those between age 35 and 64, with the exception of physical inactivity. Those who smoke and are physically inactive account for the highest proportion of the population with two or more coexistent risk factors. Canadians who are free of the four risk factors for chronic disease examined in this paper constitute the minority. Future studies are recommended to examine other risk factors, as well as interactions of multiple exposures in association with chronic disease.


Subject(s)
Alcoholism/epidemiology , Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Motor Activity/physiology , Overweight/physiology , Smoking/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Canada/epidemiology , Child , Cluster Analysis , Health Surveys , Humans , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Sex Factors
5.
J Manag Care Pharm ; 10(1): 60-78, 2004.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-14720106

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the subject of quality improvement principles and methods applied to pharmacy services and to describe a framework for current and future efforts in pharmacy services quality improvement and effective drug therapy management. BACKGROUND: The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy produced the Catalog of Pharmacy Quality Indicators in 1997, followed by the Summary of National Pharmacy Quality Measures in February 1999. In April 2002, AMCP introduced Pharmacy's Framework for Drug Therapy Management in the 21st Century. The Framework documents include a self-assessment tool that details more than 250 specific "components" that describe tasks, behaviors, skills, functions, duties, and responsibilities that contribute to meeting customer expectations for effective drug therapy management. FINDINGS: There are many opportunities for quality improvement in clinical, service, and cost outcomes related to drug therapy management. These may include patient safety; incidence of medical errors; adverse drug events; patient adherence to therapy; attainment of target goals of blood pressure, glucose, and lipid levels; risk reduction for adverse cardiac events and osteoporotic-related fractures; patient satisfaction; risk of hospitalization or mortality; and cost of care. Health care practitioners can measure improvements in health care quality in several ways including (a) a better patient outcome at the same cost, (b) the same patient outcome at lower cost, (c) a better patient outcome at lower cost, or (d) a significantly better patient outcome at moderately higher cost. Measurement makes effective management possible. A framework of component factors (e.g., tasks) is necessary to facilitate changes in the key processes and critical factors that will help individual practitioners and health care systems meet customer expectations in regard to drug therapy, thus improving these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement in health care services in the United States will be made in incremental changes that rely on a structure-process-outcome model. The structure is provided by evidence created from controlled randomized trials and other studies of care and system outcomes that are based on the scientific method. The process portion is created by the application of evidence in the form of clinical practice guidelines, clinical practice models, and self-assessment tools such as Pharmacy's Framework for Drug Therapy Management. Incremental changes in structure and process will result in the desirable outcome of meeting customer needs for more effective drug therapy and disease management.


Subject(s)
Pharmaceutical Services/standards , Total Quality Management , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations , Medication Errors/prevention & control , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , United States
6.
Value Health ; 6(5): 505-21, 2003.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-14627057

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this report is to provide, in detail, the evidentiary requirements contained in Version 2.0 of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy's (AMCP's) Format for Formulary Submissions and to elaborate on several key issues regarding the use of the Format that users, potential users, and pharmaceutical manufacturers have raised since AMCP published the first version of the guidelines in October 2000. BACKGROUND: The AMCP published its Format for Formulary Submissions in October 2000. The AMCP leadership and its members were motivated to develop these guidelines by a growing need to ensure that any increased utilization of medications, biopharmaceuticals, and vaccine products was appropriate and that newer products would bring added clinical and economic value to covered populations. Since publication of the Format, it has garnered nationwide publicity and attracted considerable positive and negative attention. As adoption of the AMCP Format has spread, manufacturers have begun to standardize the framework within which they present population-specific data. Since publication of the AMCP Format, the AMCP and the Foundation for Managed Care Pharmacy (FMCP) have continuously sought input from pharmaceutical manufacturers and health-system pharmacists through various venues to improve and clarify the process. Version 2.0 is the first attempt to address user's comments and concerns. METHODS: The majority of the article text is taken directly from Version 2.0 of the AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions published by the AMCP in October 2002. CONCLUSION: The AMCP and the FMCP believe that the AMCP Format is a tool that will help health systems establish a record of commitment to rational decision making, thus gaining the confidence of patients, clinicians, and members. While providing manufacturers a vehicle for communicating the scientifically based value of their product to a health system, the required evidence to substantiate that value argument allows a pharmacy and therapeutics committee to determine the clinical benefits of a drug, verify any cost savings the drug may generate, and determine the overall cost consequences to their health system. The AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions is an essential tool to evaluate medications, but requires thoughtful consideration as it is used.


Subject(s)
Drug Evaluation , Forms and Records Control/standards , Formularies as Topic/standards , Guidelines as Topic , Managed Care Programs/organization & administration , Academies and Institutes , Advisory Committees , Communication , Confidentiality , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Drug Costs , Drug Industry , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Insurance Coverage , Managed Care Programs/economics , Managed Care Programs/standards , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...