处方药师管理高血压的绩效薪酬

IF 1.6 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
S. Houle, T. Charrois, F. McAlister, M. Kolber, Meagen M Rosenthal, R. Lewanczuk, N. Campbell, R. Tsuyuki
{"title":"处方药师管理高血压的绩效薪酬","authors":"S. Houle, T. Charrois, F. McAlister, M. Kolber, Meagen M Rosenthal, R. Lewanczuk, N. Campbell, R. Tsuyuki","doi":"10.1177/1715163516671745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To be sustainable, pharmacists providing direct patient care must receive appropriate payment for these services. This prespecified substudy of the RxACTION trial (a randomized trial of pharmacist prescribing vs usual care in patients with above-target blood pressure [BP]) aimed to determine if BP reduction achieved differed between patients whose pharmacist was paid by pay-for-performance (P4P) vs fee-for-service (FFS). Methods: Within RxACTION, patients with elevated BP assigned to the pharmacist prescribing group were further randomized to P4P or FFS payment for the pharmacist. In FFS, pharmacists received $150 for the initial visit and $75 for follow-up visits. P4P included FFS payments plus incentives of $125 and $250 for each patient who reached 50% and 100% of the BP target, respectively. The primary outcome was difference in change in systolic BP between P4P and FFS groups. Results: A total of 89 patients were randomized to P4P and 92 to the FFS group. Patients’ average (SD) age was 63.0 (13.2) years, 49% were male and 76% were on antihypertensive drug therapy at baseline, taking a median of 2 (interquartile range = 1) medications. Mean systolic BP reductions in the P4P and FFS groups were 19.7 (SD = 18.4) vs 17.0 (SD = 16.4) mmHg, respectively (p = 0.47 for the comparison of deltas and p = 0.29 after multivariate adjustment). Conclusions: This trial of pharmacist prescribing found substantial reductions in systolic BP among poorly controlled hypertensive individuals but with no appreciable difference when pharmacists were paid by P4P vs FFS.","PeriodicalId":46612,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Pharmacists Journal","volume":"149 1","pages":"345 - 351"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1715163516671745","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pay-for-performance remuneration for pharmacist prescribers’ management of hypertension\",\"authors\":\"S. Houle, T. Charrois, F. McAlister, M. Kolber, Meagen M Rosenthal, R. Lewanczuk, N. Campbell, R. Tsuyuki\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1715163516671745\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: To be sustainable, pharmacists providing direct patient care must receive appropriate payment for these services. This prespecified substudy of the RxACTION trial (a randomized trial of pharmacist prescribing vs usual care in patients with above-target blood pressure [BP]) aimed to determine if BP reduction achieved differed between patients whose pharmacist was paid by pay-for-performance (P4P) vs fee-for-service (FFS). Methods: Within RxACTION, patients with elevated BP assigned to the pharmacist prescribing group were further randomized to P4P or FFS payment for the pharmacist. In FFS, pharmacists received $150 for the initial visit and $75 for follow-up visits. P4P included FFS payments plus incentives of $125 and $250 for each patient who reached 50% and 100% of the BP target, respectively. The primary outcome was difference in change in systolic BP between P4P and FFS groups. Results: A total of 89 patients were randomized to P4P and 92 to the FFS group. Patients’ average (SD) age was 63.0 (13.2) years, 49% were male and 76% were on antihypertensive drug therapy at baseline, taking a median of 2 (interquartile range = 1) medications. Mean systolic BP reductions in the P4P and FFS groups were 19.7 (SD = 18.4) vs 17.0 (SD = 16.4) mmHg, respectively (p = 0.47 for the comparison of deltas and p = 0.29 after multivariate adjustment). Conclusions: This trial of pharmacist prescribing found substantial reductions in systolic BP among poorly controlled hypertensive individuals but with no appreciable difference when pharmacists were paid by P4P vs FFS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46612,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Pharmacists Journal\",\"volume\":\"149 1\",\"pages\":\"345 - 351\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1715163516671745\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Pharmacists Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1715163516671745\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Pharmacists Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1715163516671745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

背景:为了可持续发展,药剂师提供直接病人护理必须得到适当的支付这些服务。这项预先指定的RxACTION试验(一项针对血压高于目标[BP]患者的药剂师处方与常规护理的随机试验)的子研究旨在确定采用按绩效付费(P4P)和按服务付费(FFS)方式支付药剂师报酬的患者的降压效果是否不同。方法:在RxACTION中,分配到药剂师处方组的血压升高患者进一步随机分配到药剂师P4P或FFS支付组。在FFS中,药剂师首次就诊可获得150美元,随访可获得75美元。P4P包括对每位达到50%和100%血压目标的患者分别给予125美元和250美元的奖励。主要结局是P4P组和FFS组之间收缩压变化的差异。结果:89例患者随机分为P4P组,92例患者随机分为FFS组。患者平均(SD)年龄为63.0(13.2)岁,49%为男性,76%基线时正在接受降压药物治疗,中位数为2种(四分位数间距= 1)。P4P组和FFS组的平均收缩压降低分别为19.7 (SD = 18.4)和17.0 (SD = 16.4) mmHg (δ值比较p = 0.47,多因素调整后p = 0.29)。结论:药师处方试验发现,控制不佳的高血压患者收缩压明显降低,但药师使用P4P与FFS支付时,收缩压无明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pay-for-performance remuneration for pharmacist prescribers’ management of hypertension
Background: To be sustainable, pharmacists providing direct patient care must receive appropriate payment for these services. This prespecified substudy of the RxACTION trial (a randomized trial of pharmacist prescribing vs usual care in patients with above-target blood pressure [BP]) aimed to determine if BP reduction achieved differed between patients whose pharmacist was paid by pay-for-performance (P4P) vs fee-for-service (FFS). Methods: Within RxACTION, patients with elevated BP assigned to the pharmacist prescribing group were further randomized to P4P or FFS payment for the pharmacist. In FFS, pharmacists received $150 for the initial visit and $75 for follow-up visits. P4P included FFS payments plus incentives of $125 and $250 for each patient who reached 50% and 100% of the BP target, respectively. The primary outcome was difference in change in systolic BP between P4P and FFS groups. Results: A total of 89 patients were randomized to P4P and 92 to the FFS group. Patients’ average (SD) age was 63.0 (13.2) years, 49% were male and 76% were on antihypertensive drug therapy at baseline, taking a median of 2 (interquartile range = 1) medications. Mean systolic BP reductions in the P4P and FFS groups were 19.7 (SD = 18.4) vs 17.0 (SD = 16.4) mmHg, respectively (p = 0.47 for the comparison of deltas and p = 0.29 after multivariate adjustment). Conclusions: This trial of pharmacist prescribing found substantial reductions in systolic BP among poorly controlled hypertensive individuals but with no appreciable difference when pharmacists were paid by P4P vs FFS.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Pharmacists Journal
Canadian Pharmacists Journal PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
26.70%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Established in 1868, the Canadian Pharmacists Journal is the oldest continuously published periodical in Canada. Our mission is to enhance patient care through advancement of pharmacy practice, with continuing professional development, peer-reviewed research, and advocacy. Our vision is to become the foremost journal for pharmacy practice and research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信