Oncologists' responsibility, comfort, and knowledge managing hyperglycemia in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy: a cross sectional study.

PURPOSE: To assess oncologists' responsibility, comfort, and knowledge managing hyperglycemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire collected oncologists' perceptions about professionals responsible for managing hyperglycemia during chemotherapy; comfort (score range 12-120); and knowledge (score range 0-16). Descriptive statistics were calculated including Student t-tests and one-way ANOVA for mean score differences. Multivariable linear regression identified predictors of comfort and knowledge scores. RESULTS: Respondents (N = 229) were 67.7% men, 91.3% White and mean age 52.1 years. Oncologists perceived endocrinologists/diabetologists and primary care physicians as those responsible for managing hyperglycemia during chemotherapy, and most frequently referred to these clinicians. Reasons for referral included lack of time to manage hyperglycemia (62.4%), belief that patients would benefit from referral to an alternative provider clinician (54.1%), and not perceiving hyperglycemia management in their scope of practice (52.4%). The top-3 barriers to patient referral were long wait times for primary care (69.9%) and endocrinology (68.1%) visits, and patient's provider outside of the oncologist's institution (52.8%). The top-3 barriers to treating hyperglycemia were lack of knowledge about when to start insulin, how to adjust insulin, and what insulin type works best. Women (ß = 1.67, 95% CI: 0.16, 3.18) and oncologists in suburban areas (ß = 6.98, 95% CI: 2.53, 11.44) had higher comfort scores than their respective counterparts; oncologists working in practices with > 10 oncologists had lower comfort scores (ß = -2.75, 95% CI: -4.96, -0.53) than those in practices with ≤ 10. No significant predictors were identified for knowledge. CONCLUSION: Oncologists expected endocrinology or primary care clinicians to manage hyperglycemia during chemotherapy, but long wait times were among the top barriers cited when referring patients. New models that provide prompt and coordinated care are needed.

Identifying Training Needs and Active Information Opportunities in Primary Care Through the Analysis of Drug Information Requests.

INTRODUCTION: Drug information (DI) services should work toward efficiency by identifying knowledge gaps and actively creating resources to address those needs. The aim was to identify training needs and active information opportunities in primary care by analyzing DI requests and to calculate labor cost associated with DI requests addressable with training or active information. METHODS: DI requests received in 2016 and 2017 by ambulatory care pharmacists were independently classified by 2 authors into: training (i.e., delivery of content meant to be retained as knowledge and used when needed); active information (i.e., resources created preemptively and consulted when needed); or passive information (i.e., not addressable with training or active information). Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen's Kappa. Median time spent by category and across practice settings/professional types was compared using bivariate analysis. Thematic analysis categorized specific training and active DI requests and labor costs were calculated. RESULTS: Of 2,041 DI requests, 330 (16.2%) were classified as training, 454 (22.2%) active information, and 1257 (61.6%) passive information (kappa = 0.769). Median (IQR) time to resolve requests was 5 (2-10) mins for training, 5 (3-11) active information, and 10 (4-15) passive information. Pharmacists spent 132.1 hrs = $8,956.98 answering questions addressable with training or active information. Areas warranting training or active information included: controlled substances, immunizations, patient assistance programs, policy/regulations, medication preparation/administration, storage/stability, disposal, availability/ordering medications, and patient-related resources. CONCLUSION: Several opportunities for training and active information were identified. Despite the single-institution nature, the method described can serve as an example for other institutions.

Return-On-Investment for Billable Pharmacist-Provided Services in the Primary Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are increasingly fulfilling roles on primary care teams, yet business models for pharmacist services in these settings have not been optimized. This study describes how an ambulatory care pharmacy department implemented various billing methods to generate revenue for pharmacist services. OBJECTIVES: (1) Describe pharmacist-delivered billable and non-billable services; and (2) Assess the impact of various billing methods on the return-on-investment (ROI) for billable services. METHODS: This study was conducted from September 2016 to August 2017 in Virginia. Pharmacist time spent performing billable encounters using current procedural technology (CPT) codes (e.g., incident-to a physician, annual wellness visits) was calculated. Encounters eligible for the hospital-based facility (G0463) and chronic care management (CCM) codes were considered to be potentially billable services. The ROI was calculated for billable and potentially billable services. RESULTS: A total of 948.3 hours (0.46 full-time equivalents (FTE)), 17% of all clinical services, were billed using CPT codes. This resulted in a total revenue of $173,638.66. Missed revenue from not billing for the G0463 and CCM codes was $68,268.37. The cost of pharmacist services for 0.46 FTE was $78,613.08, resulting in a ROI for billed pharmacist services of 1.2:1. The ROI increased to 1.6:1 when considering potentially billable services. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to have a positive ROI for billable pharmacist services. To achieve a sustainable business model, there must be a high volume of billable services. G0463 and CCM codes are often underutilized, yet represent significant opportunities in revenue for pharmacist services and should be pursued.

Development and Implementation of Clinical Pharmacist Services Within an Integrated Medical Group.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, pharmacists were integrated into a medical group to provide direct patient care, drug information activities, and health care provider education. The medical group encompasses 40 primary care and 60 specialty offices in Virginia. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and implementation of clinical pharmacist services integrated within a medical group. METHODS: Pharmacists' roles and responsibilities, type and number of patient encounters, and identification of strategies to facilitate implementation are described. RESULTS: From June 2012 to December 2014, pharmacists had 809 patient encounters, which included patient-centered education, medication consults, Medicare annual wellness visits, senior care visits, and comprehensive medication reviews. Pharmacists addressed 403 drug information requests from nurse navigators, providers, and administrators. Pharmacists also have roles in risk management, quality improvement initiatives, and operations that benefit the medical group. Strategies to facilitate implementation include working with organizational leadership, identifying a physician champion, and establishing credibility by being responsive to practice needs and responding to requests in a timely manner to build trust within the health care team. CONCLUSION: Integration of pharmacists within health care teams involves more than direct patient care activities. Pharmacists should be involved at the organizational level to have a broader impact on patient and practice levels.