Measurable Benefit of Targeted versus Comprehensive Medication Reviews in Medication Therapy Management
AffiliationCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona
Keywordstargeted medication reviews (TMRs)
comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs)
medication therapy management (MTM)
MeSH SubjectsMedication Therapy Management
MetadataShow full item record
RightsCopyright © is held by the author.
Collection InformationThis item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Associate Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, firstname.lastname@example.org.
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
AbstractObjectives: To determine whether comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) or non-CMR interventions following targeted medication reviews (TMRs) resulted in more positive medication changes. A CMR is a structured medication management session that includes a full review of an individual’s medical and medication records. Non-CMR interventions are more targeted problem-based interventions that include shorter medication management sessions, written patient outreach, and direct to provider interventions. Methods: This cross-sectional quality improvement project compared the number of individuals with positive medication changes who received a CMR to those with positive medication changes who did not receive a CMR (non-CMR). Individuals were included in this project if they qualified for the Medication Management Center’s (MMC) pharmacist-driven medication therapy management (MTM) program and received their medication review(s) in 2012 or 2013. The addition of an appropriate medication or the removal of an inappropriate medication was considered a positive medication change within 120 days of intervention. Odds ratios were calculated using Wilcoxon Rank Sum. Results: A total of 418,649 participants in 2012 and 370,107 in 2013 had their medications reviewed as part of the MTM program. The non-CMR group accounted for the majority of the interventions (375,159 for non-CMR versus 43,490 for CMR in 2012 and 332,006 versus 38,101 for 2013). Significantly more positive medication changes were achieved in the non-CMR group (n=88,467 for 2012 and n=54,971 for 2013) following the medication review compared to the CMR group (n=9,796 for 2012 and n=7,034 for 2013). CMR recipients were more likely to receive a recommendation (odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.72 for 2012 and odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.63 for 2013). Non-CMR recipients were more likely to have a recommendation result in a medication change (odds ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.28 for 2012 and 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.22-1.30 for 2013). Conclusions: While the percentage of participants who received a recommendation in the non-CMR group was lower, a greater percentage of these participants received a medication change. This indicates that non-CMR interventions following TMRs may be more effective in producing a positive medication change compared to CMRs.
DescriptionClass of 2015 Abstract
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Description of a Pharmacy Technician and Student Intern-Driven Medication Reconciliation Process and Evaluation of Medical Provider Acceptance of Recommendations to Reorder Critical MedicationsSalek, Ferena; Hall, Edina; Glover, Jon; Hall, Scott Thomas; Salek, Ferena; Hall, Edina; Glover, Jon; College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona (The University of Arizona., 2011)OBJECTIVES: To describe a pharmacy technician and student intern-driven medication reconciliation process and to evaluate medical provider acceptance of recommendations to reorder critical medications. METHODS: Patients admitted to Northwest Medical Center had medication histories taken on admission. A specially trained pharmacy technician or student intern reviewed these histories, with emphasis placed on critical medications as defined by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Recommendations to re-order these critical medications were made to medical providers. All patients, excluding those under 18 years of age or current enrollment in the prison system, admitted during the months of May-June 2010 were reviewed for acceptance of critical medication recommendations through information recorded in the pharmacy electronic medical record system. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-eight (178) recommendations were made on 132 patients requiring recommendations. All medical providers accepted 102 (57%, p-value=0.008) of the recommendations made. Hospitalists were more likely than physician specialists or surgeons to accept recommendations made (62.5%, p-value<0.001). Recommendations made regarding thyroid products were accepted the greatest majority of the time (82.1%, p-value<0.001); antidepressants (54.8%, p-value=0.321), anticonvulsants (63.2%, p-value=0.194), and medications classified as other (55.6%, p-value=0.480) were also accepted a majority of the time. Vitamin K antagonists did not have recommendations accepted a majority of the time (31.8%, p-value=0.034). CONCLUSION: Medical providers accepted a majority of recommendations to reorder critical medications made by pharmacy technicians or student interns.
Medication Reconciliation at an Academic Medical Center: Perceptions from Medical ProfessionalsWarholak, Terri; Candlish, Karol; Young, Genevieve; Warholak, Terri; College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona (The University of Arizona., 2012)Specific Aims: The goal of this project was to assess perceptions of medication reconciliation from medical professionals who perform them. Specific areas of interest included the perceived: amount of time spent on medication reconciliation; process complexity; and effectiveness of the current process. Opinions concerning the use of alternative processes were also solicited. Methods: This prospective qualitative study involved four focus group sessions at one tertiary referral teaching hospital in Tucson, Arizona. Nurses involved in admissions medication reconciliation in the emergency department were invited to participate, and their perceptions were categorized and summarized. Main Results: Participants reported a range of times to complete the medication reconciliation from zero to greater than 20 minutes. According to the participants, the time spent on each patient depended on patients’ medication knowledge and the complexity of their regimens. Participants wanted the medication list entry screen to be easier to use, and they also suggested patients’ medication lists from previous visits and from outpatient clinics associated with the medical center be easily accessible. Participants felt that emergency triage may not be the most ideal time in which to perform medication reconciliation, and they expressed concerns about accuracy of these medication lists. While some were interested in the possibility of using a patient medication database and expected that it would improve accuracy and save time, others were less open to a perceived additional step. Concusions: Participants provided suggestions for changes in the current medication reconciliation process that they feel could improve patient satisfaction and increase efficiency.