ABSTRACT
Background: Collection of a complete and accurate medication history is an essential component of the medication reconciliation process. The role of pharmacy technicians in supporting medication reconciliation has been the subject of recent interest. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to review the existing literature on pharmacy technician involvement in the medication reconciliation process and to summarize outcomes on the quality and accuracy of pharmacy technician-collected medication histories. Method: A literature review was conducted using MEDLINE and Academic Search Premier (1948 - April 2015). Results: Sixteen papers were identified, with 12 containing a formal evaluation of outcomes. Three were purely descriptive, and 9 compared the pharmacy technician's performance to pharmacists, nurses, physicians, and/or interdisciplinary teams. Studies used a variety of endpoints, but they demonstrated similar or improved outcomes by engaging pharmacy technicians. Evidence demonstrates that trained pharmacy technicians are able to gather medication histories with similar completeness and accuracy to other health care professionals. Conclusion: The use of pharmacy technicians may be a viable strategy for developing and expanding medication reconciliation processes with appropriate supervision. Future efforts should focus on evaluating the impact of expanded roles for pharmacy technicians in the health care system; assessing the need for standardization of pharmacy technician education, training, and certification; and obtaining clarification from state pharmacy boards regarding these expanded roles.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The ability of a pharmacy technician to support the patient screening and documentation-related functions of a pharmacist-driven osteoporosis management service was evaluated. METHODS: A two-phase prospective study was conducted within a large integrated health system to assess a pharmacy technician's performance in supporting a multisite team of clinical pharmacy specialists providing postfracture care. In phase I of the study, a specially trained pharmacy technician provided support to pharmacists at five participating medical offices, helping to identify patients requiring pharmacist intervention and, when applicable, collecting patient-specific clinical information from the electronic health record. In phase II of the study, the amount of pharmacist time saved through the use of technician support versus usual care was evaluated. RESULTS: The records of 127 patient cases were reviewed by the pharmacy technician during phase I of the study, and a pharmacist agreed with the technician's determination of the need for intervention in the majority of instances (92.9%). An additional 91 patient cases were reviewed by the technician in phase II of the research. With technician support, pharmacists spent less time reviewing cases subsequently determined as not requiring intervention (mean ± S.D., 5.0 ± 3.8 minutes per case compared with 5.2 ± 4.5 minutes under the usual care model; p = 0.78). In cases requiring intervention, technician support was associated with a reduction in the average pharmacist time spent on care plan development (13.5 ± 7.1 minutes versus 18.2 ± 16.6 minutes with usual care, p = 0.34). CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that a pharmacy technician can accurately determine if a patient is a candidate for pharmacist intervention and collect clinical information to facilitate care plan development.
