Evolving Pharmacist Productivity Models

The development and evaluation of a predictive productivity model in the ambulatory oncology infusion setting

PURPOSE

Accurately describing pharmacy productivity in the ambulatory oncology infusion setting is important to ensure appropriate labor utilization. The purpose of this study was to develop a productivity model utilizing weighted medication complexity and prospective schedule data to determine if predicted productivity corresponds to actual productivity across 6 ambulatory oncology infusion sites.

METHODS

This study was a 2-part analysis. Part 1 was to modify the historic productivity model from dispense code weighting to individual medication complexity weighting. Medication-specific relative value units were determined by analyzing 12 months of historic timestamp data from the electronic health record and gravimetric technology software. The productivity model containing updated relative value units was compared to the historic model to determine if the difference in total calculated full-time equivalents (FTEs) was within 2.0 FTEs. Part 2 applied prospective infusion schedule data to the updated model to determine if predicted productivity corresponded to actual productivity (within 2.0 FTEs) for pharmacy infusion services.

RESULTS

The mean difference in total calculated FTEs for infusion during the study period was 2.46 (standard deviation = 1.87) and was within the range of 2.0 FTEs (P = 0.54), indicating that the updated model was not statistically different from the historic model. The mean difference in total calculated FTEs between the predictive and actual productivity model for infusion was 18.28 (standard deviation = 1.00) and was out of the range of 2.0 FTEs (P < 0.001), indicating that predicted productivity was statistically different from the actual productivity.

CONCLUSION

Medication complexity weighting can be used to provide a comprehensive assessment of workload and productivity across pharmacy infusion services. The methodology used to assess predictive productivity should be explored further.

Productivity Tracking: A Survey of Critical Care Pharmacist Practices and Satisfaction

Introduction: The position paper on critical care pharmacy services describes two tiers of responsibilities: essential and desirable activities. Activities are categorized into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. Documentation of these activities can be important for justifying pharmacist positions, comparing pharmacy practice models, conducting performance evaluations, and tracking individual workload; however, limited recommendations are provided for standardized productivity tracking, and national practices remain largely uncharacterized. Objectives: The purpose of this survey was to describe documentation practices of critical care pharmacist activities. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed via email to 1694 members of the ACCP critical care practice research network. The survey asked respondents to describe the methods used to document productivity as it relates to the 5 domains. Results: Seventy-nine (4.7%) critical care pharmacists from 63 institutions completed the survey. Intervention documentation was used for position justification and annual reviews among 54.4% and 44.1% of pharmacists, respectively. Pharmacists were routinely expected to perform additional responsibilities beyond patient care that contribute to overall productivity, but the percentage of institutions that track these activities as a measure of pharmacist productivity was relatively low: quality improvement (46%), research/scholarship (29%), training/education (38%), and professional development (27%). Documentation of these additional responsibilities and activities was primarily used for annual evaluations, but the majority of respondents answered that no standardized method for tracking activities existed. In multivariate regression, dedicated ICU pharmacists was a significant predictor for increased satisfaction (Exp(ß) 4.498, 95% CI 1.054-19.187, P = .042). Conclusion: Practice variation exists in how and for what intent critical care pharmacists track productivity. Further evaluation and standardization of productivity tracking may aid in position justification and practice model evaluation for dedicated ICU pharmacists in today’s value-based era.

Decision-making framework for an acute care clinical pharmacist productivity model: Part 1

Disclaimer

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Purpose

Clinical pharmacist productivity assessment has long been challenging, as a standard definition does not exist. A multistep project was undertaken with the intent to develop, validate, and implement an acute care clinical pharmacist productivity model. The initial step of the project was designed to identify, define, prioritize, and weight a comprehensive list of daily pharmacist responsibilities stratified by relative time spent on each function via consensus.

Methods

Delphi methodology applied by a panel of experts was used to identify a comprehensive list of acute care pharmacist responsibilities ranked in order of time intensity. Twenty-three acute care clinical pharmacists participated in the process. The consensus list was validated by time observation studies. Each responsibility was assigned a weight and corresponding work outputs by a consensus panel. Weighting of each responsibility was assigned according to the relative time intensity and complexity of each task.

Results

The results of the Delphi consensus process included the top 20 time-intensive responsibilities identified by the acute care clinical pharmacists. Timed observations of acute care clinical pharmacists yielded results similar to those of the consensus process. Selection of corresponding work outputs and weights for each responsibility provided the final requirements for the productivity model.

Conclusion

The development of an acute care clinical pharmacist productivity model first requires the selection of appropriate work outputs and weighting. The consensus process provided a newly identified comprehensive list of pharmacist responsibilities that will serve as the foundation of the clinical productivity model. Validated consensus methodology can be useful for engaging clinical pharmacists in decision-making and the development of a clinical productivity model.