Evaluation of a Community Pharmacy-Based Screening Questionnaire to Identify Patients at Risk for Drug Therapy Problems

Development of a medication literacy assessment instrument (MELIA) for older people receiving home care

AIM

To develop a consensus-based instrument [MELIA] to assess the medication literacy of older home care patients to ultimately optimize medication safety.

DESIGN

This study was part of the project 'Study of Medication Safety in Home Care' (doMESTIC), which took place from 2016 to 2020 in Switzerland. The development process for the medication literacy assessment instrument encompassed six steps.

METHOD

First, a scoping literature search was conducted in the Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases as 2) a basis for the development of assessment items. This was followed by 3) a cognitive interview with home care patients and 4) the first round of a Delphi process. Then, 5) a focus group interview with home care experts was conducted before 6) the second Delphi round. The project took place between August 2020 and June 2021. With these different steps, perspectives of both patients and various home care and medication safety experts were included in the development of the assessment instrument.

RESULTS

A detailed instrument consisting of 20 items as well as a 7-item short version were developed. The short version is intended for efficient preliminary screening to identify patients at high risk for medication management-related problems.

CONCLUSION

Medication literacy in patients 65 years and older receiving professional home care is a key issue in preventing medication errors. A targeted assessment, starting with an efficient short version of MELIA, allows for prioritization of patients for interventions to optimize medication safety while ensuring their independence as much as possible.

IMPACT

Systematic assessment of patients' medication literacy helps to provide them with targeted and individual support in their medication management to avoid medication errors and increase patient safety. The development of MELIA is a first step in providing an assessment instrument specifically for the home care setting.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient participation was an integral part of the instrument development. The initial 23 items were optimized based on cognitive interviews with four home care patients. The next steps of the instrument development were based on feedback of health care professionals-encompassing advance practice nurses, regular nurses, pharmacists and general practitioners-during a two-step Delphi process as well as a focus group discussion.

Peter WL. Drug Therapy Problems Identified by Pharmacists Through Comprehensive Medication Management Following Hospital Discharge

Background: Pharmacists influence health care outcomes through the identification and resolution of drug therapy problems (DTPs). Objective: The objectives of this study were to describe number, type, and severity of DTPs based on clinical significance and likelihood of harm in patients transitioning from hospital to home as assessed during a comprehensive medication management (CMM) visit with a pharmacist. Secondary objectives were to assess intrarater reliability in severity ratings and assess likelihood of harm for adverse drug reactions (ADR) by drug classes. Methods: Retrospective review of 408 patients having a face-to-face, telephonic, or virtual CMM visit within the Fairview Health System. Teams of 3 investigators reviewed each DTP from the electronic medical record for each of the 408 patients and assigned a severity score (0-10) for clinical significance and likelihood of harm. Main Results: The highest severity DTP classes were adherence and ADR. The lowest severity DTP class was unnecessary drug therapy. An average of 2.5 DTPs was found per patient at the index CMM visit following hospital discharge. The most common DTP classes were needs additional therapy and dose too low. There were statistically significant differences in DTP severity scoring between reviewer types, though differences were <5%. Drug classes with the highest severity ADR included diabetes, cardiovascular, and anticoagulant/antiplatelet agents. Conclusions: The DTP severity ratings indicated that reviewers found ADR and adherence DTPs were potentially the most severe. There were differences in DTP ratings between reviewer types, though clinical significance of these differences is unclear.

Exploring Electronic Medical Record and Self-Administered Medication Risk Screening Tools in a Primary Care Clinic

BACKGROUND

Electronic medical record (EMR) screening for indicators of medication risk could improve efficiency in identifying primary care clinic patients in need of clinical pharmacist care compared with patient self-reporting.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) compare the performance of an EMR medication risk assessment questionnaire (MRAQ) with a self-administered (SA) MRAQ and (b) explore each tool's ability to predict indicators of health behavior, health status, and health care utilization.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted with 143 adults who attended an academic family medicine center and were taking ≥ 2 medications. All participants completed the 10-item SA-MRAQ, Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, Chew's health literacy screener, Stanford Health Distress Scale, and SF-36 overall rating of health. A blinded investigator completed the EMR-MRAQ and a chart review to ascertain 6 months of health care utilization. Outcome measures included the following: (a) scores from the 5- and 10-item SA-MRAQs and 5-item EMR-MRAQ; (b) sensitivity and specificity to determine the accuracy of the 5-item EMR versus the 5-item SA risk scores; (c) correlations between risk assessments and health behavior/status scales; and (d) area under the receiver operator curve to determine how well a high-risk score predicted health care utilization.

RESULTS

The 5-item SA-MRAQ, the 5-item EMR-MRAQ, and the 10-item SA-MRAQ categorized 52.9% (55/104), 69.2% (99/143), and 17.6% (18/102) of participants as high risk, respectively. For the 104 participants who completed both 5-item MRAQ tools, the EMR-MRAQ had a sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 49.0% in detecting a high-risk SA-MRAQ score. Both 5-item risk assessments showed weak correlations with health distress and overall health, while the 10-item SA-MRAQ additionally showed weak correlations with medication adherence. The EMR-MRAQ was most effective in predicting all-cause emergency room visits/hospitalization (c-statistic = 0.69; 95% CI=0.57-0.81) and high clinic utilization (≥ 4 visits per 6 months; c-statistic = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.69-0.85). The EMR-MRAQ had high sensitivities but low specificities for these health care utilization outcomes, respectively (82.6% and 33.3%; 88.9% and 42.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests that EMR-MRAQ screening has high sensitivity but low specificity in comparison with self-reporting and was able to discriminate between those who would and would not experience health care utilization outcomes. These results justify further development and validation of an automated EMR-based tool to predict patient-important consequences of medication-related problems.

DISCLOSURES

This work was funded by the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists Research and Education Foundation, which had no role in the analysis or interpretation of data or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The authors have no conflict of interests, potential or otherwise, to report. Makowsky had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design were contributed by Makowsky and Cor. Makowsky and Wong collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Makowsky, Cor, and Wong. The manuscript was written by Makowsky and was critically reviewed for intellectual content by Makowsky, Cor, and Wong.

Applying the guidelines for pharmacists integrating into primary care teams

BACKGROUND

In 2013, Jorgenson et al. published guidelines for pharmacists integrating into primary care teams. These guidelines outlined 10 evidence-based recommendations designed to support pharmacists in successfully establishing practices in primary care environments. The aim of this review is to provide a detailed, practical approach to implementing these recommendations in real life, thereby aiding to validate their effectiveness.

METHODS

Both authors reviewed the guidelines independently and ranked the importance of each recommendation respective to their practice. Each author then provided feedback for each recommendation regarding the successes and challenges they encountered through implementation. This feedback was then consolidated into agreed upon statements for each recommendation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Focusing on building relationships (with an emphasis on face time) and demonstrating value to both primary care providers and patients were identified as key aspects in developing these new roles. Ensuring that the environment supports the practice, along with strategic positioning within the clinic, improves uptake and can maximize the usefulness of a pharmacist in primary care. Demonstrating consistent and competent clinical and documentation skills builds on the foundation of the other recommendations to allow for the effective provision of clinical pharmacy services. Additional recommendations include developing efficient ways (potentially provider specific) to communicate with primary care providers and addressing potential preconceived notions about the role of the pharmacist in primary care.

CONCLUSION

We believe these guidelines hold up to real-life integration and emphatically recommend their use for new and existing primary care pharmacists.

Community pharmacy: an untapped patient data resource

As community pharmacy services become more patient centered, they will be increasingly reliant on access to good quality patient information. This review describes how the information that is currently available in community pharmacies can be used to enhance service delivery and patient care. With integration of community pharmacy and medical practice records on the horizon, the opportunities this will provide are also considered. The community pharmacy held patient medication record, which is the central information repository and has been used to identify non-adherence, prompts the pharmacist to clinically review prescriptions, identify patients for additional services, and identify those patients at greater risk of adverse drug events. While active recording of patient consultations for treatment over the counter may improve the quality of consultations and information held, the lost benefits of anonymity afforded by community pharmacies need to be considered. Recording of pharmacy staff activities enables the workload to be monitored, remuneration to be justified, critical incidents to be learned from, but is not routine practice. Centralization of records between community pharmacies enables practices to be compared and consistent problems to be identified. By integrating pharmacy and medical practice records, patient behavior with respect to medicines can be more closely monitored and should prevent duplication of effort. When using patient information stored in a community pharmacy, it is, however, important to consider the reason why the information was recorded in the first instance and whether it is appropriate to use it for a different purpose without additional patient consent. Currently, community pharmacies have access to large amounts of information, which, if stored and used appropriately, can significantly enhance the quality of provided services and patient care. Integrating the records increases opportunities to enhance patient care yet further. While community pharmacies have significant amounts of information available to them, this is frequently untapped.