Providers' perceptions of monitoring process for pregnancy category D or X medication in women of childbearing age

Background and Objectives: A process for monitoring the prescribing of common pregnancy category D or X medications in women of childbearing age (ages 12 to 50) was developed and implemented by clinical pharmacists within a residency clinic. The project goals were to determine 1) if providers value the monitoring of their prescribing practices, 2) if they value the process used by the clinic, and 3) if providers report changing prescribing practices or note increased awareness when prescribing pregnancy category D or X medications in women of childbearing age as a result of the monitoring process. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to the 43 providers currently practicing in the clinic. Survey questions covered topics including value of monitoring prescribing practices for pregnancy category D or X medications in women of childbearing age, value of the specific monitoring process used at the clinic, frequency of consideration of pregnancy status and contraception use when prescribing medication, and suggestions for improvement on the monitoring process. RESULTS: The response rate was 81.4% (n=35). Results showed all responders valued the monitoring of their prescribing of pregnancy category D or X medications and the monitoring process used by the clinic. Providers reported the monitoring process increased how often they thought about a patient’s pregnancy status and contraception use when prescribing medications. CONCLUSIONS: The monitoring process is valued by providers and impacts prescribing practices. It is a quality process that could be implemented by clinical pharmacists in other primacy care practices to enhance the safe prescribing of medications for women of childbearing age.   Type: Original Researc

Providers' perceptions of monitoring process for pregnancy category D or X medication in women of childbearing age

Background and Objectives: A process for monitoring the prescribing of common pregnancy category D or X medications in women of childbearing age (ages 12 to 50) was developed and implemented by clinical pharmacists within a residency clinic. The project goals were to determine 1) if providers value the monitoring of their prescribing practices, 2) if they value the process used by the clinic, and 3) if providers report changing prescribing practices or note increased awareness when prescribing pregnancy category D or X medications in women of childbearing age as a result of the monitoring process. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to the 43 providers currently practicing in the clinic. Survey questions covered topics including value of monitoring prescribing practices for pregnancy category D or X medications in women of childbearing age, value of the specific monitoring process used at the clinic, frequency of consideration of pregnancy status and contraception use when prescribing medication, and suggestions for improvement on the monitoring process. RESULTS: The response rate was 81.4% (n=35). Results showed all responders valued the monitoring of their prescribing of pregnancy category D or X medications and the monitoring process used by the clinic. Providers reported the monitoring process increased how often they thought about a patient’s pregnancy status and contraception use when prescribing medications. CONCLUSIONS: The monitoring process is valued by providers and impacts prescribing practices. It is a quality process that could be implemented by clinical pharmacists in other primacy care practices to enhance the safe prescribing of medications for women of childbearing age.   Type: Original Researc

Landscape of Medication Management in the Minnesota Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)

Purpose: To describe the landscape of medication management within the patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) in the state of Minnesota. Methods: An electronic survey of care coordinators within PCMHs certified with the Department of Health in state of Minnesota was conducted. The survey and follow up were distributed by the Minnesota Department of Health. At the time the survey was distributed, there were 161 certified PCMHs in the state. Results: The final analysis included 21 respondents. Size, setting, and time as a certified PCMH varied between practices. PCMHs reported a higher percentage of patients enrolled at lower complexity tiers (35.0 percent at tier I and 40.4 percent enrolled at tier II), with PCMHs with clinical pharmacist services reporting slightly increased frequency of higher complexity patients. The composition of the care team varied from clinic to clinic, but all clinics were multidisciplinary with a mean of 5.8 different provider types listed for each clinic. Physicians were the most common providers of medication management across all settings, and one respondent reported that medication management services are not formally provided in his/her clinic. The presence or absence of a clinical pharmacist did not significantly influence care coordination time dedicated to medication-related activities. Respondents residing in a clinic with clinical pharmacist services reported a high level of satisfaction with pharmacist-provided services. Conclusion: The implementation of the PCMH model in many of the participating clinics was relatively recent and there remains much to be learned regarding the landscape of comprehensive medication management in the PCMH. The reported distribution of patients in complexity tiers suggests that clinics may use different strategies to determine resource allocation. Although the presence of a clinical pharmacist did not influence care coordination time dedicated, care coordinators valued services provided by clinical pharmacists.   Type: Original Researc

Landscape of Medication Management in the Minnesota Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)

Purpose: To describe the landscape of medication management within the patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) in the state of Minnesota. Methods: An electronic survey of care coordinators within PCMHs certified with the Department of Health in state of Minnesota was conducted. The survey and follow up were distributed by the Minnesota Department of Health. At the time the survey was distributed, there were 161 certified PCMHs in the state. Results: The final analysis included 21 respondents. Size, setting, and time as a certified PCMH varied between practices. PCMHs reported a higher percentage of patients enrolled at lower complexity tiers (35.0 percent at tier I and 40.4 percent enrolled at tier II), with PCMHs with clinical pharmacist services reporting slightly increased frequency of higher complexity patients. The composition of the care team varied from clinic to clinic, but all clinics were multidisciplinary with a mean of 5.8 different provider types listed for each clinic. Physicians were the most common providers of medication management across all settings, and one respondent reported that medication management services are not formally provided in his/her clinic. The presence or absence of a clinical pharmacist did not significantly influence care coordination time dedicated to medication-related activities. Respondents residing in a clinic with clinical pharmacist services reported a high level of satisfaction with pharmacist-provided services. Conclusion: The implementation of the PCMH model in many of the participating clinics was relatively recent and there remains much to be learned regarding the landscape of comprehensive medication management in the PCMH. The reported distribution of patients in complexity tiers suggests that clinics may use different strategies to determine resource allocation. Although the presence of a clinical pharmacist did not influence care coordination time dedicated, care coordinators valued services provided by clinical pharmacists.   Type: Original Researc

Pharmacists Are Not Mid-Level Providers

Pharmacists should not be classified as “mid-level” providers. This classification implies that there are different levels or a hierarchy of providers when in fact each health care provider brings unique and essential knowledge and contributions to the health care team and to the care of patients. Pharmacists are no exception. Timely issues germane to pharmacists, including dependent and independent practice, provider status, and professional identity, contribute to the rationale that pharmacists, just like all other health care providers, should be classified by their professional identity. While use of the term mid-level provider to identify various practitioners may not seem consequential, in today’s health care environment, words do matter when it comes to attributing value, and the contributions of all health care providers should be recognized as equally important to the patient care team

Report of the 2020-2021 Professional Affairs Standing Committee: Pharmacists Unique Role and Integration in Healthcare Settings

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2020-21 Professional Affairs Committee was charged to (1) Read all six reports from the 2019-20 AACP standing committees to identify elements of these reports that are relevant to the committee’s work this year; (2) Identify opportunities and models of integration of pharmacist care services in physician and other health provider practices beyond primary care; (3) Differentiate and make the case for the integration of pharmacist care services from that of other mid-level providers; and (4) From the work on the aforementioned charges, identify salient activities for the Center To Accelerate Pharmacy Practice Transformation and Academic Innovation (CTAP) for consideration by the AACP Strategic Planning Committee and AACP staff. This report provides information on the committee’s process to address the committee charges, describes the rationale for and the results from a call to colleges and schools of pharmacy to provide information on their integrating pharmacist care services in physician and other health provider practices beyond primary care practice, and discusses how pharmacist-provided patient care services differ from those provided by other healthcare providers. The committee offers a revision to a current association policy statement, a proposed policy statement as well as recommendations to CTAP and AACP and suggestions to colleges and schools of pharmacy pertaining to the committee charges

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT Student-Generated Questions to Assess Learning in an Online Orientation to Pharmacy Course

Objective. To develop a formative assessment strategy for use in an online pharmacy orientation course that fosters student engagement with the course content and facilitates a manageable grading workload for the instructor. Design. A formative assessment strategy involving student-generated, multiple-choice questions was developed for use in a high-enrollment, online course. Assessment. Three primary outcomes were assessed: success of the assessment in effectively engaging students with the content, interrater reliability of the grading rubric, and instructor perception of grading workload. The project also evaluated whether this metacognitive strategy transferred to other aspects of the students' academic lives. The instructor perception was that the grading workload was manageable. Conclusion. Using student-generated multiple-choice questions is an effective approach to assessment in an online course introducing students to and informing them about the profession of pharmacy

Landscape of Medication Management in the Minnesota Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)

Purpose: To describe the landscape of medication management within the patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) in the state of Minnesota. Methods: An electronic survey of care coordinators within PCMHs certified with the Department of Health in state of Minnesota was conducted. The survey and follow up were distributed by the Minnesota Department of Health. At the time the survey was distributed, there were 161 certified PCMHs in the state. Results: The final analysis included 21 respondents. Size, setting, and time as a certified PCMH varied between practices. PCMHs reported a higher percentage of patients enrolled at lower complexity tiers (35.0 percent at tier I and 40.4 percent enrolled at tier II), with PCMHs with clinical pharmacist services reporting slightly increased frequency of higher complexity patients. The composition of the care team varied from clinic to clinic, but all clinics were multidisciplinary with a mean of 5.8 different provider types listed for each clinic. Physicians were the most common providers of medication management across all settings, and one respondent reported that medication management services are not formally provided in his/her clinic. The presence or absence of a clinical pharmacist did not significantly influence care coordination time dedicated to medication-related activities. Respondents residing in a clinic with clinical pharmacist services reported a high level of satisfaction with pharmacist-provided services. Conclusion: The implementation of the PCMH model in many of the participating clinics was relatively recent and there remains much to be learned regarding the landscape of comprehensive medication management in the PCMH. The reported distribution of patients in complexity tiers suggests that clinics may use different strategies to determine resource allocation. Although the presence of a clinical pharmacist did not influence care coordination time dedicated, care coordinators valued services provided by clinical pharmacists

Clinical Pharmacists as Educators in Family Medicine Residency Programs: A CERA Study of Program Directors

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The clinical pharmacist’s role within family medicine residency programs (FMRPs) is well established. However, there is limited information regarding perceptions of program directors (PDs) about clinical pharmacy educators. The study objectives were (1) to estimate the prevalence of clinical pharmacists within FMRPs and (2) to determine barriers and motivations for incorporation of clinical pharmacists as educators. METHODS: The Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) distributed an electronic survey to PDs. Questions addressed formalized pharmacotherapy education, clinical pharmacists in educator roles, and barriers and benefits of clinical pharmacists in FMRPs. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 50% (224/451). Seventy- six percent (170/224) of the responding PDs reported that clinical pharmacists provide pharmacotherapy education in their FMRPs, and 57% (97/170) consider clinical pharmacists as faculty members. In programs with clinical pharmacists, 72% (83/116) of PDs reported having a systematic approach for teaching pharmacotherapy versus 22% (21/95) in programs without. In programs without clinical pharmacists, the top barrier to incorporation was limited ability to bill for clinical services 48% (43/89) versus 29% (32/112) in programs with clinical pharmacists. In both programs with and without clinical pharmacists, the top benefit of having clinical pharmacists was providing a collaborative approach to pharmacotherapy education for residents (35% and 36%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of FMRPs incorporate clinical pharmacists as faculty members. Despite providing collaborative approaches to pharmacotherapy education, their limited ability to bill for services is a major barrier