Evaluating the effects of a multidisciplinary transition care management program on hospital readmissions.

PURPOSE: To measure the effect of a pharmacist-initiated transitions of care (TOC) program on rates of 30-day all-cause readmissions and primary care follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate a pharmacist-initiated TOC program for patients discharged from hospitals of a large health system from September 2015 through July 2016. Discharged patients of 13 primary care physicians (the intervention cohort) received TOC program services, and discharged patients seen by 12 other primary care physicians (the control cohort) received usual care. Patients in both cohorts were followed for 90 days. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause readmissions, and secondary outcomes were 14-day primary care visits, TOC pharmacist identification and resolution of medication therapy problems (MTPs), and transition care management (TCM) billing. Multivariable modeling was performed to test the associations of patient receipt of TOC services with 30-day readmissions and 14-day primary care visits, with controlling for patient demographics and baseline healthcare utilization. RESULTS: A total of 492 patients received the TOC intervention, and 379 were followed in the usual care cohort. Among intervention patients, 960 MTPs were identified, and 85.7% of identified MTPs were resolved. Moreover, 9% of intervention cohort patients were readmitted within 30 days, compared to 15% of control cohort patients, and this effect was significant in the multivariable model (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.89; P = 0.0108). Rates of primary care visits did not differ significantly between the groups; 65% of intervention group visits were billed using TCM codes. CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-initiated TOC program was effective in reducing 30-day all-cause readmissions.

Factors associated with comprehensive medication review completion rates: A national survey of community pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Completion rates for medication therapy management (MTM) services have been lower than desired and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has added MTM comprehensive medication review (CMR) completion rates as a Part D plan star measure. Over half of plans utilize community pharmacists via contracts with MTM vendors. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this survey study was to identify factors associated with the CMR completion rates of community pharmacies contracted with a national MTM vendor. METHODSL: Representatives from 27,560 pharmacy locations contracted with a national MTM vendor were surveyed. The dependent variable of interest was the pharmacies' CMR completion rate. Independent variables included the pharmacy's progressiveness stratum and number of CMRs assigned by the MTM vendor during the time period, as well as self-reported data to characterize MTM facilitators, barriers, delivery strategies, staffing, selected items from a modified Assessment of Chronic Illness Care, and pharmacist/pharmacy demographics. Univariate negative binomial models were fit for each independent variable, and variables significant at p < 0.05 were entered into a multivariable model. RESULTS: Representatives from 3836 (13.9%) pharmacy locations responded; of these, 90.9% (n = 3486) responses were useable. The median CMR completion rate was 0.42. Variables remaining significant at p < 0.05 in the multivariable model included: progressiveness strata; pharmacy type; scores on the facilitators scale; responses to two potential barriers items; scores on the patient/caregiver delivery strategies sub-scale; providing MTM at multiple locations; reporting that the MTM vendor sending the survey link is the primary MTM vendor for which the respondent provides MTM; and the number of hours per week that the pharmacy is open. CONCLUSIONS: Factors at the respondent (e.g., responses to facilitators scale) and pharmacy (e.g., pharmacy type) levels were associated with CMR completion rates. These findings could be used by MTM stakeholders to improve CMR completion rates.

Variation in Medication Therapy Management Delivery: Implications for Health Care Policy.

BACKGROUND: Medication therapy management (MTM) program evaluations have revealed mixed outcomes, with some studies finding favorable outcomes and others finding no differences between patients who received MTM versus those who did not. One possible reason for outcomes variability is differences in delivery of MTM programs. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides a framework for how health care organizations can improve care for the chronically ill through 6 elements: organization of health care, delivery system design, clinical information systems, decision support, self-management, and linkages to community resources. OBJECTIVE: To apply the CCM to understand variation in MTM delivery and formulate policy recommendations. METHODS: This study used a mixed-methods descriptive analysis of MTM delivery. Investigators conducted visits to a purposeful sample of MTM practices to observe MTM and interview participants. The pharmacists and staff of these practices completed a modified Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC). Pairs of investigators analyzed interview transcripts to identify themes. Demographics and ACIC scores were summarized using descriptive statistics. After analysis, investigators discussed overarching themes and policy implications organized by CCM elements. RESULTS: Seven practices participated, and 87 participants were interviewed. Based on ACIC scores, MTM patient volume, and payer mix, practices were categorized as Early Maturity Level or Later Maturity Level. From the model, organization of health care themes included whether MTM was the practice's core competence, belief/confidence in the MTM process, lack of formal rewards, and the influence of organizational goals and external environment. Delivery system design themes pertained to the extent that MTM processes were formalized. Clinical information systems themes were the extent to which systems were influenced by payers, efficiency strategies, and the accuracy and availability of information. In considering clinical decision support themes, alert design limitations and variation in user approaches to alerts based on experience were noted. We observed strong support for patient self-management; when present, barriers were attributed to the patient, MTM provider, or payer. Referral to community resources was minimal. Numerous policy implications were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our research identified numerous ways by which MTM delivery varies, particularly by MTM practice maturity level. These findings provide evidence for several policy changes that could be considered to optimize MTM delivery, encourage alignment with the CCM, and promote practice maturation. DISCLOSURES: This research and a portion of Snyder's salary were supported by grant number K08HS022119 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Snyder reports consulting fees from Westat for an evaluation of the CMS Enhanced MTM program. The other authors have nothing to disclose. Portions of this research have been presented as abstracts at the following conferences: (a) 2017 Academy Health Annual Research Meeting; June 25-27, 2017; New Orleans, LA; (b) 2015 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Clinical Midyear Meeting; December 4-8, 2015; New Orleans, LA; and

CDE Pharmacists in the United States.

Purpose The purpose of the study was to identify current practice settings for Certified Diabetes Educators (CDEs) who are pharmacists. Following nurses and dietitians, pharmacists are the third largest group of health professionals who hold the CDE credential. The growing number of CDE pharmacists highlights the increasing involvement of pharmacists in diabetes care. What remains unknown is the specific settings in which pharmacist CDEs practice. Methods A cross-sectional, nationwide electronic survey was sent to all CDE pharmacists in the United States. Questions regarding demographics, practice setting characteristics, certification information, and common diabetes-related counseling topics were asked of all respondents. Survey items also sought to determine pharmacists' perceptions of the benefits and barriers to obtaining the CDE credential. The questions were dichotomous, Likert-scale response, or open-ended. Results A total of 462 survey responses were included in the analysis for a response rate of (462/1275) 36.2%. Respondents identified hospital or health system as the most common practice setting (n = 311), followed by academia (n = 100), community (n = 81), managed care (n = 44), and other settings. Conclusions Study findings provide important data that describe where CDE pharmacists are practicing to provide diabetes education. The continued steady growth of CDE pharmacists suggests a consistent increase of pharmacists practicing diabetes education. Diabetes educators should recognize that CDE pharmacists practice in a variety of different settings.

Characterization of actions taken during the delivery of medication therapy management: A time-and-motion approach.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize actions performed by pharmacists and support staff during provision of medication therapy management (MTM) and to compare actions performed according to practice characteristics. METHODS: A purposeful sample of 7 MTM practices (2 call centers and 5 community practices) was identified and visited by investigators. Pharmacists and support staff were observed during their routine provision of MTM. Investigators characterized "major" (e.g., preparation for a comprehensive medication review) and "minor" (i.e., specific steps in overarching major action) actions with the use of a time-and-motion approach. RESULTS: A total of 32 major and 469 minor actions were observed. Practices were characterized as Later Maturity Level or Early Maturity Level on the basis of their self-reported MTM appointment volume, self-assessment of the extent of integration of chronic care model principles, and payer mix. Later Maturity Level practices were more likely to deliver follow-up medication therapy reviews and comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) as opposed to targeted medication reviews (TMRs) and to receive physician referrals for MTM. Later Maturity Level practices were also more likely to use paid interns than pharmacy rotation students. CMR activities observed at Later Maturity Level practices lasted a median of 30.8 minutes versus 20.3 minutes for CMR activities at Early Maturity Level practices. Similarly, TMR activities observed at Later Maturity Level practices were longer: a median of 31.0 minutes versus 12.3 minutes. At Later Maturity Level practices, pharmacists spent a greater proportion of time providing patient education, while support staff spent a greater proportion of time on tasks such as capturing demographics and introducing or explaining MTM. CONCLUSION: MTM activities were longer at Later Maturity Level practices, and these practices were more likely to use paid pharmacy interns and to receive physician referrals for MTM. This work provides a foundation for future research.

Identifying barriers to glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes after completion of an accredited education program.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify patient-perceived barriers to achieving A1C targets after receiving instruction in an accredited diabetes education program. DESIGN: Qualitative research using semistructured interviews and thematic analyses. SETTING: One pharmacist-run diabetes center located within an independent community pharmacy in a suburban region of southern Indiana. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 17 participants between the ages of 41-78 were interviewed in March and April 2016. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-perceived barriers to attaining glycemic control after completion of a pharmacist-taught diabetes self-management education (DSME) program accredited by the American Association of Diabetes Educators. RESULTS: Participants reported a variety of perceived barriers to glycemic control subsequent to the receipt of structured education. Seven major themes emerged: 1) health care provider factors; 2) self-identified indiscretions; 3) psychological barriers and poor social support; 4) knowledge deficits; 5) personal injury or adverse drug events; 6) time constraints and competing life demands; and 7) financial constraints. CONCLUSION: Participants reported a variety of perceived barriers to achieving A1C targets after completing DSME. Incorporation of solutions and coping mechanisms to these barriers into diabetes education programs may help patients attain glycemic control. Other factors may require individualized attention outside of DSME in follow-up episodes of diabetes care.

Implications of In-Use Photostability: Proposed Guidance for Photostability Testing and Labeling to Support the Administration of Photosensitive Pharmaceutical Products, Part 3. Oral Drug Products.

The ICH Q1B guidance and additional clarifying manuscripts provide the essential information needed to conduct photostability testing for pharmaceutical drug products in the context of manufacturing, packaging, and storage. As the previous 2 papers in this series highlight for drug products administered by injection (part 1) and drug products administered via topical application (part 2), there remains a paucity of guidance and methodological approaches to conducting photostability testing to ensure effective product administration. Part 3 in the series is presented here to provide a similar approach and commentary for photostability testing for oral drug products. The approach taken, as was done previously, is to examine "worst case" photoexposure scenarios in combination with ICH-defined light sources to derive a set of practical experimental approaches to support the safe and effective administration of photosensitive oral drug products.