Impact of a clinical decision support system on identifying drug-related problems and making recommendations to providers during community pharmacist-led medication reviews in Ontario, Canada: A pilot study.
Karen Riley, Katherine Yap, Gaelan Foley, John Lambe, Sean Lund
{"title":"Impact of a clinical decision support system on identifying drug-related problems and making recommendations to providers during community pharmacist-led medication reviews in Ontario, Canada: A pilot study.","authors":"Karen Riley, Katherine Yap, Gaelan Foley, John Lambe, Sean Lund","doi":"10.1111/jep.14123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) during community pharmacist medication reviews.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Pilot 3-phase (group), open-label study.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Two community pharmacies in Sarnia, Ontario, with pharmacists providing medication reviews to patients.</p><p><strong>Study procedures: </strong>Five pharmacists participated in three phases (groups). During Phase 1, pharmacists conducted medication reviews in 25 adult patients using the usual approaches. In Phase 2, pharmacists were trained to use a CDSS to identify DRPs, and then conducted medication reviews using the tool in a different group of 25 adult patients. In Phase 3, pharmacists conducted medication reviews without the aid of the CDSS in 25 additional adult patients.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was recommendation to the primary care physician to alter pharmacotherapy based on medication review, assessed using mean number and frequency (yes/no) of recommendations by patient. Secondary outcomes included number of potential DRPs, actual DRPs, medication review duration time, pharmacist's perceptions of the CDSS and patient satisfaction with medication review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean number of recommendations to primary care physicians to alter pharmacotherapy per patient in Phases 1, 2 and 3 did not differ: 1.0 (SD = I.2) versus 1.5 (1.0) versus 1.5 (1.0), respectively; p = 0.223. The percentage of patients with a pharmacy recommendation sent to physicians across the phases, however, differed: 52% versus 80% versus 88%, respectively; p = 0.010, with more in Phases 2 and 3 compared to 1. There were more potential DRPs in group 2 compared to other groups. There were no differences in actual DRPs and medication review time. Pharmacists had positive attitudes about the CDSS. Patients were generally satisfied with their medication review.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This small pilot study provides some preliminary evidence for performance and feasibility of a CDSS to identify DRPs that pharmacists will act on. Future research is recommended to validate these findings in a larger sample.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14123","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) during community pharmacist medication reviews.
Design: Pilot 3-phase (group), open-label study.
Setting and participants: Two community pharmacies in Sarnia, Ontario, with pharmacists providing medication reviews to patients.
Study procedures: Five pharmacists participated in three phases (groups). During Phase 1, pharmacists conducted medication reviews in 25 adult patients using the usual approaches. In Phase 2, pharmacists were trained to use a CDSS to identify DRPs, and then conducted medication reviews using the tool in a different group of 25 adult patients. In Phase 3, pharmacists conducted medication reviews without the aid of the CDSS in 25 additional adult patients.
Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was recommendation to the primary care physician to alter pharmacotherapy based on medication review, assessed using mean number and frequency (yes/no) of recommendations by patient. Secondary outcomes included number of potential DRPs, actual DRPs, medication review duration time, pharmacist's perceptions of the CDSS and patient satisfaction with medication review.
Results: The mean number of recommendations to primary care physicians to alter pharmacotherapy per patient in Phases 1, 2 and 3 did not differ: 1.0 (SD = I.2) versus 1.5 (1.0) versus 1.5 (1.0), respectively; p = 0.223. The percentage of patients with a pharmacy recommendation sent to physicians across the phases, however, differed: 52% versus 80% versus 88%, respectively; p = 0.010, with more in Phases 2 and 3 compared to 1. There were more potential DRPs in group 2 compared to other groups. There were no differences in actual DRPs and medication review time. Pharmacists had positive attitudes about the CDSS. Patients were generally satisfied with their medication review.
Conclusions: This small pilot study provides some preliminary evidence for performance and feasibility of a CDSS to identify DRPs that pharmacists will act on. Future research is recommended to validate these findings in a larger sample.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.