Tracy A Lieu, E Margaret Warton, Andrew deLaunay, Stephanie Prausnitz, Milton Chan, Michelle R Mancha, Thao Huynh, Eric Smallberg, Charles Quesenberry, Kristine Lee, Mary Reed
{"title":"药剂师与医生对COVID-19药物电子访问请求的管理:一项随机临床试验","authors":"Tracy A Lieu, E Margaret Warton, Andrew deLaunay, Stephanie Prausnitz, Milton Chan, Michelle R Mancha, Thao Huynh, Eric Smallberg, Charles Quesenberry, Kristine Lee, Mary Reed","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.2.189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic visits (e-visits), defined as structured asynchronous electronic messages between patients and clinicians requiring clinical decision-making, are being increasingly used to enhance access to outpatient health care services, but the primary care physicians who typically manage them face work overflow. Pharmacists have been proposed to manage e-visits that lead to prescription requests, but scant evidence exists about the effectiveness of this approach.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare pharmacist management of structured asynchronous e-visit requests for COVID-19 medication with physician management regarding quality of care, timeliness, and patient care experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cluster-randomized clinical trial included adults from 17 medical facilities of Kaiser Permanente Northern California who made e-visits requesting COVID-19 medication (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) from October 9 to December 11, 2023. In the Pharmacist Care group, a regional team of pharmacists managed e-visits for COVID-19 medication; in the Physician Care group, pools of adult and family medicine physicians managed these visits. The primary outcome was whether a patient with 1 or more potential serious drug-drug interactions received counseling via an electronic secure message. Secondary outcomes included prescribing rates, time to the prescription, and patient perceptions of care quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 1,753 eligible patients (mean age = 52.2 [SD = 15.9] years; 57.7% female), 642 received Pharmacist Care and 1,111 received Physician Care. The percentage of patients with a potential drug-drug interaction who were sent counseling messages by the clinician did not differ between the Pharmacist Care (76 of 79 [96.2%]) and Physician Care groups (193 of 201 [96.0%]) (risk difference [RD] = 0.18%; 95% CI = -4.8% to 5.2%). The pharmacist and physician groups had similar rates of prescribing (87.4% vs 84.4%; RD = 2.9; 95% CI = -0.4 to 6.3). Pharmacist Care compared with Physician Care had faster mean time from the initial e-visit submission to the resulting prescription (1.0 vs 2.5 hours; RD = -1.5; 95% CI = -1.9 to -1.2). Pharmacist Care took more clinician time per visit than Physician Care (10.7 vs 4.2 minutes), resulting in higher estimated cost ($11.40 vs $6.70). After the study period, the pharmacist team made protocol changes to improve workflow efficiency, and a follow-up analysis 12 months later found significant reductions in per-visit time (to 5.7 minutes) and estimated cost (to $6.03) under Pharmacist Care. Patient perceptions of care did not differ significantly between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pharmacist care and physician care for patient e-visits for COVID-19 medication both yielded high quality of care, with no significant group differences. Evaluation of pharmacist care may be warranted for other e-visits designed to facilitate medication prescribing.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06096863.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":"31 2","pages":"189-197"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11801361/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmacist vs physician management of e-visit requests for COVID-19 medication: A randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Tracy A Lieu, E Margaret Warton, Andrew deLaunay, Stephanie Prausnitz, Milton Chan, Michelle R Mancha, Thao Huynh, Eric Smallberg, Charles Quesenberry, Kristine Lee, Mary Reed\",\"doi\":\"10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.2.189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic visits (e-visits), defined as structured asynchronous electronic messages between patients and clinicians requiring clinical decision-making, are being increasingly used to enhance access to outpatient health care services, but the primary care physicians who typically manage them face work overflow. Pharmacists have been proposed to manage e-visits that lead to prescription requests, but scant evidence exists about the effectiveness of this approach.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare pharmacist management of structured asynchronous e-visit requests for COVID-19 medication with physician management regarding quality of care, timeliness, and patient care experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cluster-randomized clinical trial included adults from 17 medical facilities of Kaiser Permanente Northern California who made e-visits requesting COVID-19 medication (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) from October 9 to December 11, 2023. In the Pharmacist Care group, a regional team of pharmacists managed e-visits for COVID-19 medication; in the Physician Care group, pools of adult and family medicine physicians managed these visits. The primary outcome was whether a patient with 1 or more potential serious drug-drug interactions received counseling via an electronic secure message. Secondary outcomes included prescribing rates, time to the prescription, and patient perceptions of care quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 1,753 eligible patients (mean age = 52.2 [SD = 15.9] years; 57.7% female), 642 received Pharmacist Care and 1,111 received Physician Care. The percentage of patients with a potential drug-drug interaction who were sent counseling messages by the clinician did not differ between the Pharmacist Care (76 of 79 [96.2%]) and Physician Care groups (193 of 201 [96.0%]) (risk difference [RD] = 0.18%; 95% CI = -4.8% to 5.2%). The pharmacist and physician groups had similar rates of prescribing (87.4% vs 84.4%; RD = 2.9; 95% CI = -0.4 to 6.3). Pharmacist Care compared with Physician Care had faster mean time from the initial e-visit submission to the resulting prescription (1.0 vs 2.5 hours; RD = -1.5; 95% CI = -1.9 to -1.2). Pharmacist Care took more clinician time per visit than Physician Care (10.7 vs 4.2 minutes), resulting in higher estimated cost ($11.40 vs $6.70). After the study period, the pharmacist team made protocol changes to improve workflow efficiency, and a follow-up analysis 12 months later found significant reductions in per-visit time (to 5.7 minutes) and estimated cost (to $6.03) under Pharmacist Care. Patient perceptions of care did not differ significantly between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pharmacist care and physician care for patient e-visits for COVID-19 medication both yielded high quality of care, with no significant group differences. Evaluation of pharmacist care may be warranted for other e-visits designed to facilitate medication prescribing.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06096863.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy\",\"volume\":\"31 2\",\"pages\":\"189-197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11801361/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.2.189\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.2.189","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:电子访问(e-访问)被定义为患者和需要临床决策的临床医生之间的结构化异步电子信息,越来越多地用于提高门诊医疗服务的可及性,但通常管理这些服务的初级保健医生面临工作过剩的问题。药剂师已经被建议管理导致处方请求的电子访问,但关于这种方法有效性的证据很少。目的:比较药师对结构化异步电子访视请求的管理与医师管理在服务质量、及时性和患者护理体验方面的差异。方法:本群随机临床试验纳入了来自北加州凯撒医疗机构的17家医疗机构的成年人,他们于2023年10月9日至12月11日通过电子访问申请COVID-19药物(nirmatrelvir-ritonavir)。在药剂师护理组,一个区域药剂师团队管理COVID-19药物的电子访问;在医生护理组,成人和家庭医学医生管理这些就诊。主要结果是是否有1种或更多潜在的严重药物相互作用的患者通过电子安全信息接受咨询。次要结果包括处方率、处方时间和患者对护理质量的感知。结果:在1753例符合条件的患者中(平均年龄= 52.2 [SD = 15.9]岁;57.7%女性),642人接受药师护理,1111人接受医师护理。药师护理组(79 / 76[96.2%])和内科医生护理组(201 / 193[96.0%])之间有潜在药物-药物相互作用的患者收到咨询信息的比例没有差异(风险差异[RD] = 0.18%;95% CI = -4.8% ~ 5.2%)。药剂师组和医生组的处方率相似(87.4% vs 84.4%;rd = 2.9;95% CI = -0.4 ~ 6.3)。与内科医生护理相比,药剂师护理从最初的电子访问提交到最终处方的平均时间更快(1.0小时vs 2.5小时;rd = -1.5;95% CI = -1.9 ~ -1.2)。药剂师护理比医生护理每次就诊花费更多的临床医生时间(10.7分钟对4.2分钟),导致更高的估计成本(11.40美元对6.70美元)。研究结束后,药剂师团队对方案进行了修改,以提高工作流程效率,12个月后的随访分析发现,在药剂师护理下,每次就诊时间(降至5.7分钟)和估计费用(降至6.03美元)显著减少。患者对护理的感知在两组之间没有显著差异。结论:药师护理和医师护理在患者电子访视COVID-19用药过程中均获得较高的护理质量,组间差异无统计学意义。对药剂师护理的评估可能需要用于其他旨在促进药物处方的电子访问。临床试验:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06096863。
Pharmacist vs physician management of e-visit requests for COVID-19 medication: A randomized clinical trial.
Background: Electronic visits (e-visits), defined as structured asynchronous electronic messages between patients and clinicians requiring clinical decision-making, are being increasingly used to enhance access to outpatient health care services, but the primary care physicians who typically manage them face work overflow. Pharmacists have been proposed to manage e-visits that lead to prescription requests, but scant evidence exists about the effectiveness of this approach.
Objective: To compare pharmacist management of structured asynchronous e-visit requests for COVID-19 medication with physician management regarding quality of care, timeliness, and patient care experience.
Methods: This cluster-randomized clinical trial included adults from 17 medical facilities of Kaiser Permanente Northern California who made e-visits requesting COVID-19 medication (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) from October 9 to December 11, 2023. In the Pharmacist Care group, a regional team of pharmacists managed e-visits for COVID-19 medication; in the Physician Care group, pools of adult and family medicine physicians managed these visits. The primary outcome was whether a patient with 1 or more potential serious drug-drug interactions received counseling via an electronic secure message. Secondary outcomes included prescribing rates, time to the prescription, and patient perceptions of care quality.
Results: Among the 1,753 eligible patients (mean age = 52.2 [SD = 15.9] years; 57.7% female), 642 received Pharmacist Care and 1,111 received Physician Care. The percentage of patients with a potential drug-drug interaction who were sent counseling messages by the clinician did not differ between the Pharmacist Care (76 of 79 [96.2%]) and Physician Care groups (193 of 201 [96.0%]) (risk difference [RD] = 0.18%; 95% CI = -4.8% to 5.2%). The pharmacist and physician groups had similar rates of prescribing (87.4% vs 84.4%; RD = 2.9; 95% CI = -0.4 to 6.3). Pharmacist Care compared with Physician Care had faster mean time from the initial e-visit submission to the resulting prescription (1.0 vs 2.5 hours; RD = -1.5; 95% CI = -1.9 to -1.2). Pharmacist Care took more clinician time per visit than Physician Care (10.7 vs 4.2 minutes), resulting in higher estimated cost ($11.40 vs $6.70). After the study period, the pharmacist team made protocol changes to improve workflow efficiency, and a follow-up analysis 12 months later found significant reductions in per-visit time (to 5.7 minutes) and estimated cost (to $6.03) under Pharmacist Care. Patient perceptions of care did not differ significantly between groups.
Conclusions: Pharmacist care and physician care for patient e-visits for COVID-19 medication both yielded high quality of care, with no significant group differences. Evaluation of pharmacist care may be warranted for other e-visits designed to facilitate medication prescribing.
期刊介绍:
JMCP welcomes research studies conducted outside of the United States that are relevant to our readership. Our audience is primarily concerned with designing policies of formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs that are based on evidence from large populations of people. Studies of pharmacist interventions conducted outside the United States that have already been extensively studied within the United States and studies of small sample sizes in non-managed care environments outside of the United States (e.g., hospitals or community pharmacies) are generally of low interest to our readership. However, studies of health outcomes and costs assessed in large populations that provide evidence for formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs are of high interest to JMCP’s readership.