Benefits Of Clinical Pharmacy Services Research Articles

Multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions in secondary care settings between countries of various income levels: a scoping review protocol

IntroductionClinical pharmacy services often involve multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions. However, current pharmacy practice models vary across different countries. Despite the documented benefits of clinical pharmacy services, the characteristics of pharmacist-led interventions...

Providers' Perceived Value of Clinical Pharmacist and Technician Services within Primary Care Clinics.

Several studies have demonstrated the benefit of clinical pharmacy services in primary care. However, studies are limited on providers' perceived value of embedded primary care pharmacy teams. The purpose of this project was to determine how primary care clinical pharmacists and technicians provide value to medical providers. Primary care providers in University of Utah health clinics where primary care clinical pharmacists are embedded were invited to participate in one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Interview sessions were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified. The transcripts were coded and analyzed to determine common themes. Questions were on various topics, including what is of greatest value to them, pharmacy integration into care teams, provider burnout, provider happiness at work, provider workload, and provider retention in the health system. In total, 25 interviews were conducted from nine different clinics (response rates of 19.7% for providers and 81.8% for clinics). Coding revealed themes of increased job satisfaction, enhanced patient care, decreased workload and burnout, and a desire for increased access to clinical pharmacy services. The responses related to clinical pharmacists in primary care were overwhelmingly positive, and providers almost unanimously expressed the need for more pharmacy services in primary care.

Validation of a hospital clinical pharmacy workforce calculator: A methodology for pharmacy?

The benefits of clinical pharmacy services are established within hospital practice but staff numbers required for service delivery are not well described and staffing levels vary. The need for a consistent, objective method of determining staffing levels was recognised at a UK University Hospital and a Clinical Pharmacy Workforce Calculator (CPWC) was developed. To develop the Activity Standard (AS) for pharmaceutical care and establish the reliability of the CPWC across acute hospital settings in UK. Acute hospital in-patient clinical pharmacy services on medical and surgical wards. Using the World Health Organisation's Workload Indicators of Staffing Need (WISN) methodology, a two-round Delphi study was undertaken. This developed the Activity Standard for pharmaceutical care and identified the staff-time unavailable for clinical work. Consenting panel members then tested the CPWC, calculating the staff required for three scenarios to determine whether it could be reliably used by different operators. Thirty-six participants consented to participate. Data were returned from 22 (61%) of whom 20 (56%) supplied analysable data. Consensus was achieved on the tasks required for pharmaceutical care delivery, the mean time each takes, how frequently they should be completed and the time unavailable for clinical work for each grade of staff. The CPWC calculates staffing requirements using these data. Eleven participants (55%) tested the CPWC and analysis of responses demonstrated that 30 of 33 (91%) calculations were accurately completed. This study defined the WISN Activity Standard for UK pharmaceutical care delivery to hospital inpatients and showed content validity for the CPWC in acute medical and surgical hospital settings. Different operators used the CPWC reliably and applied it to local sites. The CPWC offers hospital pharmacy managers a useful tool to negotiate adequate staffing to deliver pharmaceutical care. Its development methodology could be applied widely in pharmacy practice.

Assessment of Economic Benefit of Clinical Pharmacy Services in Oncology

Assessment of Economic Benefit of Clinical Pharmacy Services in Oncology

The impact of clinical pharmacists in improving Jordanian patients' health outcomes.

Objectives:To assess the impacts of clinical pharmacists on Jordanian patients’ health outcomes.Methods:A systematic review was conducted until July 2016 within EBSCO, Pubmed, Cochrane database, and ISI Web of Knowledge. Published studies evaluating the benefit of clinical pharmacy services on therapeutic, safety, humanistic, and economic outcomes in hospital or community settings in Jordan were targeted. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed risk of bias using a pre-published validated tool. The literature search identified 130 publications of which 21 full texts met predetermined inclusion criteria.Results:Studies were of moderate quality. Pharmacist interventions resulted in an average reduction (95% CI) in systolic blood pressure of 5.45 mm Hg (2.95-7.92) and diastolic blood pressure of 3.03 mm Hg (1.09-4.96). The mean reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin was 0.75% (-0.49-1.99) and fasting blood sugar was 36.73 mg/dl (-19.7-93.1). The average reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 2.36 (1.8-16.62) mg/dl and triglycerides was 20.16 (6.14-46.47). There was a minimal increase in the level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 1.24 (1.64-4.11) mg/dl. Effects on safety along with humanistic and economic outcomes and long term effects remained unclear.Conclusion:Published evidence from Jordan highlights service opportunities for clinical pharmacists. Favorable but not always statistically significant impacts were found on therapeutic outcomes. More studies are needed to understand safety, humanistic, economic, and long-term outcomes. Therefore, the add-on benefits of this service to the health system are not well understood. Future studies of higher rigor and multi-perspective outcomes are mandated.

Clinical pharmacists in primary care: Provider satisfaction and perceived impact on quality of care provided.

Purpose:The purpose of this study is to evaluate primary care provider satisfaction and perceived impact of clinical pharmacy services on the disease state management in primary care.Methods:A cross-sectional survey with 24 items and 4 domains was distributed anonymously to pharmacy residency program directors across the United States who were requested to forward the survey to their primary care provider colleagues. Primary care providers were asked to complete the survey.Results:A total of 144 primary care providers responded to the survey, with 130 reporting a clinical pharmacist within their primary care practice and 114 completing the entire survey. Primary care providers report pharmacists positively impact quality of care (mean = 5.5 on Likert scale of 1–6; standard deviation = 0.72), high satisfaction with pharmacy services provided (5.5; standard deviation = 0.79), and no increase in workload as a result of clinical pharmacists (5.5; standard deviation = 0.77). Primary care providers would recommend clinical pharmacists to other primary care practices (5.7; standard deviation = 0.59). Primary care providers perceived specific types of pharmacy services to have the greatest impact on patient care: medication therapy management (38.6%), disease-focused management (29.82%), and medication reconciliation (11.4%). Primary care providers indicated the most valuable disease-focused pharmacy services as diabetes (58.78%), hypertension (9.65%), and pain (11.4%).Conclusion:Primary care providers report high satisfaction with and perceived benefit of clinical pharmacy services in primary care and viewed medication therapy management and disease-focused management of diabetes, hypertension, and pain as the most valuable clinical pharmacy services. These results can be used to inform development or expansion of clinical pharmacy services in primary care.

The degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists in primary care practice and the impact on health outcomes: A systematic review.

A non-dispensing pharmacist conducts clinical pharmacy services aimed at optimizing patients individual pharmacotherapy. Embedding a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice enables collaboration, probably enhancing patient care. The degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists into multidisciplinary health care teams varies strongly between settings. The degree of integration may be a determinant for its success. This study investigates how the degree of integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist impacts medication related health outcomes in primary care. In this literature review we searched two electronic databases and the reference list of published literature reviews for studies about clinical pharmacy services performed by non-dispensing pharmacists physically co-located in primary care practice. We assessed the degree of integration via key dimensions of integration based on the conceptual framework of Walshe and Smith. We included English language studies of any design that had a control group or baseline comparison published from 1966 to June 2016. Descriptive statistics were used to correlate the degree of integration to health outcomes. The analysis was stratified for disease-specific and patient-centered clinical pharmacy services. Eighty-nine health outcomes in 60 comparative studies contributed to the analysis. The accumulated evidence from these studies shows no impact of the degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists on health outcomes. For disease specific clinical pharmacy services the percentage of improved health outcomes for none, partial and fully integrated NDPs is respectively 75%, 63% and 59%. For patient-centered clinical pharmacy services the percentage of improved health outcomes for none, partial and fully integrated NDPs is respectively 55%, 57% and 70%. Full integration adds value to patient-centered clinical pharmacy services, but not to disease-specific clinical pharmacy services. To obtain maximum benefits of clinical pharmacy services for patients with multiple medications and comorbidities, full integration of non-dispensing pharmacists should be promoted.

Measurement of Clinical Pharmacy Key Performance Indicators to Focus and Improve Your Hospital Pharmacy Practice.

-

Clinical pharmacy activities in chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease patients: a systematic literature review

BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) represent worldwide health problems with an epidemic extent. Therefore, attention must be given to the optimisation of patient care, as gaps in the care of CKD and ESRD patients are well documented. As part of a multidisciplinary patient care strategy, clinical pharmacy services have led to improvements in patient care. The purpose of this study was to summarise the available evidence regarding the role and impact of clinical pharmacy services for these patient populations.MethodsA literature search was conducted using the Medline, Embase and International Pharmaceutical s databases to identify relevant studies on the impact of clinical pharmacists on CKD and ESRD patients, regarding disease-oriented and patient-oriented outcomes, and clinical pharmacist interventions on drug-related problems.ResultsAmong a total of 21 studies, only four (19%) were controlled trials. The majority of studies were descriptive (67%) and before-after studies (14%). Interventions comprised general clinical pharmacy services with a focus on detecting, resolving and preventing drug-related problems, clinical pharmacy services with a focus on disease management, or clinical pharmacy services with a focus on patient education in order to increase medication knowledge. Anaemia was the most common comorbidity managed by clinical pharmacists, and their involvement led to significant improvement in investigated disease-oriented outcomes, for example, haemoglobin levels. Only four of the studies (including three controlled trials) presented data on patient-oriented outcomes, for example, quality of life and length of hospitalisation. Studies investigating the number and type of clinical pharmacist interventions and physician acceptance rates reported a mean acceptance rate of 79%. The most common reported drug-related problems were incorrect dosing, the need for additional pharmacotherapy, and medical record discrepancies.ConclusionsFew high-quality trials addressing the benefit and impact of clinical pharmacy services in CKD and ESRD patients have been published. However, all available studies reported some positive impact resulting from clinical pharmacist involvement, including various investigated outcome measures that could be improved. Additional randomised controlled trials investigating patient-oriented outcomes are needed to further determine the role of clinical pharmacists and the benefits of clinical pharmacy services to CKD and ESRD patients.

Establishing clinical pharmacy services in multiple campuses of an acute-rehabilitation facility

The new directors of pharmacy at the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation were challenged to demonstrate to organizational leaders the potential benefits of clinical pharmacy services. Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation is one of the nation’s largest rehabilitation hospitals located on three

Clinical pharmacy services and solid organ transplantation: a literature review

Organ transplantation represents the therapy of choice for most types of end-stage organ failure, and post-transplant patient care warrants great attention. The aim of this study was to summarise the available evidence regarding the role and impact of clinical pharmacy services in the care of solid organ transplant patients. A search of the literature was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and IPA databases to identify studies relevant to our investigation of the impact of clinical pharmacists' interventions. Only five out of nineteen of the included studies were randomised controlled trials; eleven studies were descriptive, and three were before-after studies. Interventions performed in these studies consisted of routine clinical pharmacy services with a focus on identifying, resolving and preventing drug-related problems; clinical pharmacy services with a focus on therapeutic drug monitoring; and those with a focus on compliance enhancement and educational interventions. The number and type of interventions and the physicians' acceptance rates were assessed in the majority of the included studies. Acceptance rates were generally above 95%, and most studies reported that clinical pharmacy services had a positive impact on the care of solid organ transplant patients. Positive perceptions of patients and health care professionals are also reported. In two of the studies, patients' compliance rates and drug knowledge were assessed following counselling by a pharmacist. Dosing-related interventions were the most common interventions proposed. Immunosuppressants, cardiovascular drugs and antimicrobials were the drug classes most affected by the clinical pharmacists' interventions. High quality evidence that supports the benefit of clinical pharmacy services in the care of solid organ transplant patients is rare. Nevertheless, all of the included studies showed that clinical pharmacy services had a positive impact. Furthermore, all included studies showed that patients and physicians appreciated clinical pharmacists. The various outcome measures used in these studies were improved by interactions with clinical pharmacists. More randomised controlled trials are needed to contribute to the paucity of the existing evidence.

Evidence of the economic benefit of clinical pharmacy services: 1996-2000.

We sought to summarize and assess original evaluations of the economic impact of clinical pharmacy services published from 1996-2000, and to provide recommendations and methodologic considerations for future research. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify articles that were then blinded and randomly assigned to reviewers who confirmed inclusion and abstracted key information. Results were compared with those of a similar review of literature published from 1988-1995. In the 59 included articles, the studies were conducted across a variety of practice sites that consisted of hospitals (52%), community pharmacies and clinics (41%), health maintenance organizations (3%), and long-term or intermediate care facilities (3%). They focused on a broad range of clinical pharmacy services such as general pharmacotherapeutic monitoring (47%), target drug programs (20%), disease management programs (10%), and patient education or cognitive services (10%). Compared with the studies of the previous review, a greater proportion of evaluations were conducted in community pharmacies or clinics, and the types of services evaluated tended to be more comprehensive rather than specialized. Articles were categorized by type of evaluation: 36% were considered outcome analyses, 24% full economic analyses, 17% outcome descriptions, 15% cost and outcome descriptions, and 8% cost analyses. Compared with the studies of the previous review, a greater proportion of studies in the current review used more rigorous study designs. Most studies reported positive financial benefits of the clinical pharmacy service evaluated. In 16 studies, a benefit:cost ratio was reported by the authors or was able to be calculated by the reviewers (these ranged from 1.7:1-17.0:1, median 4.68:1). The body of literature from this 5-year period provides continued evidence of the economic benefit of clinical pharmacy services. Although the quality of study design has improved, whenever possible, future evaluations of this type should incorporate methodologies that will further enhance the strength of evidence of this literature and the conclusions that may be drawn from it.