Community pharmacists' interventions and documentation during medication therapy management encounters delivered face-to-face versus via telephone: The devil is in the details

Jasmine Rivera; Natalia Shcherbakova; Christine Vala; Kam Capoccia

doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.12.020

Community pharmacists' interventions and documentation during medication therapy management encounters delivered face-to-face versus via telephone: The devil is in the details

Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020 Oct;16(10):1447-1451. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.12.020. Epub 2019 Dec 26.

Authors

Jasmine Rivera¹, Natalia Shcherbakova², Christine Vala¹, Kam Capoccia³

Affiliations

¹ Walgreens Co, 619 Chestnut St, Springfield, MA, USA.
² College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Western New England University, Springfield, MA, USA. Electronic address: natalia.shcherbakova@wne.edu.
³ College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Western New England University, Springfield, MA, USA.

PMID: 31889640
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.12.020

Abstract

Background: To date, no studies are available comparing in-person versus telephone-administered medication therapy management (MTM) encounters in a community pharmacy setting with respect to medication-related problems, interventions and documentation.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate types of medication-related problems, interventions, and documentation among patients receiving MTM face-to-face versus over the telephone.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on all completed comprehensive medication reviews (CMR) between 2011 and 2017 in 14 community pharmacies in Western Massachusetts, USA that belong to one district of a national chain. Medication-related problems were classified as: Beers criteria medications, untreated condition, dose too high or low, medication omission, duplicate therapy, drug-drug interaction, non-adherence, complicated dosing. Pharmacist's interventions were classified as education, medication reconciliation, and vaccination. Documentation of assessment, plan, discussion notes, and recommendations were evaluated as being present or absent.

Results: In total, 297 encounters (56.5% were over the telephone) were included in the analysis. There was no significant differences between clinical and demographic characteristics and types of medication-related problems and pharmacist interventions among patients who received face-to-face versus telephone MTM service. Assessment was documented among 28% of face-to-face and 42% of telephone CMR encounters (p < 0.05). Plan was documented among 27% of face-to-face and 40% of telephone CMR encounters (p < 0.05). Discussion notes were documented among 97% of face-to-face and 98% of telephone CMR encounters (p > 0.05). Pharmacist recommendations were documented among 92% of face-to-face and 95% of telephone CMR encounters (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Pharmacists identify medication-related problems and provide education and medication reconciliation interventions independent of the mode of delivery. The overall low frequency of assessment and plan documentation raises concerns. It is imperative for pharmacists to document both instances of provider outreach and follow-up to ascertain resolutions of patients' medication-related problems.

Keywords: Cognitive services; Community pharmacist; Face-to-face; MTM; Medication management; Telephone.

MeSH terms

Community Pharmacy Services*
Documentation
Humans
Medication Therapy Management
Pharmacists*
Retrospective Studies
Telephone