Dataset Information

Pay-for-performance remuneration for pharmacist prescribers' management of hypertension: A substudy of the RxACTION trial.

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.

SUBMITTER: Houle SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5089333 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pay-for-performance remuneration for pharmacist prescribers' management of hypertension: A substudy of the RxACTION trial.

Houle Sherilyn K D SK Charrois Theresa L TL McAlister Finlay A FA Kolber Michael R MR Rosenthal Meagen M MM Lewanczuk Richard R Campbell Norman R C NR Tsuyuki Ross T RT

Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC 20161003 6

<h4>Background</h4>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).<h4>Methods</h4>Within RxACTION, patients with elevated B ...[more]

PMID: 27829858

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe provision of independent prescribing rights for United Kingdom (UK) pharmacists has enabled them to prescribe within their area of competence. The aim of this study was to evaluate an evidence-based training programme designed to prepare Pharmacist Independent Prescribers (PIPs) to safely and effectively assume responsibility for pharmaceutical care of older people in care homes in the UK, within a randomised controlled trial.MethodsThe training and competency assessment process included two training days, professional development planning against a bespoke competency framework, mentor support, and a viva with an independent General Practitioner (GP). Data on the PIPs' perceptions of the training were collected through evaluation forms immediately after the training days and through online questionnaires and interviews after delivery of the 6-month intervention. Using a mixed method approach each data set was analysed separately then triangulated providing a detailed evaluation of the process. Kaufman's Model of Learning Evaluation guided interpretations.ResultsAll 25 PIPs who received the training completed an evaluation form (N = 25). Post-intervention questionnaires were completed by 16 PIPs and 14 PIPs took part in interviews. PIPs reported the training days and mentorship enabled them to develop a personalised portfolio of competence in preparation for discussion during a viva with an independent GP. Contact with the mentor reduced as PIPs gained confidence in their role. PIPs applied their new learning throughout the delivery of the intervention leading to perceived improvements in residents' quality of life and medicines management. A few PIPs reported that developing a portfolio of competence was time intensive, and that further training on leadership skills would have been beneficial.ConclusionsThe bespoke training programme was fit for purpose. Mentorship and competency assessment were resource intensive but appropriate. An additional benefit was that many PIPs reported professional growth beyond the requirement of the study.Trial registrationThe definitive RCT was registered with the ISRCTN registry (registration number ISRCTN 17,847,169 ).

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness, cost effectiveness (to be reported elsewhere), and safety of pharmacy independent prescribers in care homes.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial, with clusters based on triads of a pharmacist independent prescriber, a general practice, and one to three associated care homes.SettingCare homes across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, their associated general practices, and pharmacy independent prescribers, formed into triads.Participants49 triads and 882 residents were randomised. Participants were care home residents, aged ≥65 years, taking at least one prescribed drug, recruited to 20 residents/triad.InterventionEach pharmacy independent prescriber provided pharmaceutical care to approximately 20 residents across one to three care homes, with weekly visits over six months. Pharmacy independent prescribers developed a pharmaceutical care plan for each resident, did medicines reviews/reconciliation, trained staff, and supported with medicines related procedures, deprescribing, and authorisation of prescriptions. Participants in the control group received usual care.Main outcomes measuresThe primary outcome was fall rate/person at six months analysed by intention to treat, adjusted for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes included quality of life (EQ-5D by proxy), Barthel score, Drug Burden Index, hospital admissions, and mortality. Assuming a 21% reduction in falls, 880 residents were needed, allowing for 20% attrition.ResultsThe average age of participants at study entry was 85 years; 70% were female. 697 falls (1.55 per resident) were recorded in the intervention group and 538 falls (1.26 per resident) in the control group at six months. The fall rate risk ratio for the intervention group compared with the control group was not significant (0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.26) after adjustment for all model covariates. Secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups, with exception of the Drug Burden Index, which significantly favoured the intervention. A third (185/566; 32.7%) of pharmacy independent prescriber interventions involved medicines associated with falls. No adverse events or safety concerns were identified.ConclusionsChange in the primary outcome of falls was not significant. Limiting follow-up to six months combined with a small proportion of interventions predicted to affect falls may explain this. A significant reduction in the Drug Burden Index was realised and would be predicted to yield future clinical benefits for patients. This large trial of an intensive weekly pharmacist intervention with care home residents was also found to be safe and well received.Trial registrationISRCTN 17847169.

Project description:Background:Pharmacist-managed (team-based) care for hypertension with home blood pressure monitoring support interventions have been widely studied and shown to be effective in improving rates of hypertension control and lowering blood pressure; however, few studies have evaluated the economic considerations related to bringing these programs into usual practice. Objective:To analyze the economic outcomes of the Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Pharmacist Management on Blood Pressure (Hyperlink) study, a cluster randomized controlled trial which used home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist case management to achieve better blood pressure control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Methods:A prospective analysis compared differences in medical costs and encounters in the Hyperlink telemonitoring intervention and usual care groups in the 12 months pre- and post-enrollment using medical and pharmacy insurance claims from a health care sector perspective. Generalized estimating equation models were used to estimate differences between groups over time. These results, combined with previously published prospective study results on intervention costs and blood pressure outcomes, were used to estimate cost-effectiveness measures for blood pressure control and reduction. Findings:Total medical costs in the intervention group were lower compared with the usual care group by an average of $281 per person, but this difference was not statistically significant. Clinic-based office visit, radiology, pharmacy, and hospital costs were also non-significantly lower in the intervention group. Statistically significant differences were found in lipid-related laboratory costs (higher) and in hypertension- (higher) and lipid-related (lower) pharmacy costs. Patterns in medical costs were similar for medical encounters. On average, the intervention cost $7337 per person achieving hypertension control and $139 or $265 per mm Hg reduction in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, respectively. Conclusions:Home blood pressure monitoring and pharmacist case management to improve hypertension care can be implemented without increasing, and potentially reducing, overall medical care costs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a pay for performance incentive on quality of care and outcomes among UK patients with hypertension in primary care.DesignInterrupted time series.SettingThe Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, United Kingdom.Participants470 725 patients with hypertension diagnosed between January 2000 and August 2007.InterventionThe UK pay for performance incentive (the Quality and Outcomes Framework), which was implemented in April 2004 and included specific targets for general practitioners to show high quality care for patients with hypertension (and other diseases).Main outcome measuresCentiles of systolic and diastolic blood pressures over time, rates of blood pressure monitoring, blood pressure control, and treatment intensity at monthly intervals for baseline (48 months) and 36 months after the implementation of pay for performance. Cumulative incidence of major hypertension related outcomes and all cause mortality for subgroups of newly treated (treatment started six months before pay for performance) and treatment experienced (started treatment in year before January 2001) patients to examine different stages of illness.ResultsAfter accounting for secular trends, no changes in blood pressure monitoring (level change 0.85, 95% confidence interval -3.04 to 4.74, P=0.669 and trend change -0.01, -0.24 to 0.21, P=0.615), control (-1.19, -2.06 to 1.09, P=0.109 and -0.01, -0.06 to 0.03, P=0.569), or treatment intensity (0.67, -1.27 to 2.81, P=0.412 and 0.02, -0.23 to 0.19, P=0.706) were attributable to pay for performance. Pay for performance had no effect on the cumulative incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, heart failure, or all cause mortality in both treatment experienced and newly treated subgroups.ConclusionsGood quality of care for hypertension was stable or improving before pay for performance was introduced. Pay for performance had no discernible effects on processes of care or on hypertension related clinical outcomes. Generous financial incentives, as designed in the UK pay for performance policy, may not be sufficient to improve quality of care and outcomes for hypertension and other common chronic conditions.

Project description:BackgroundDespite compelling evidence of the benefits of treatment and well-accepted guidelines for treatment, hypertension is controlled in less than one-half of United States citizens.Methods/designThis randomized controlled trial tests whether explicit financial incentives promote the translation of guideline-recommended care for hypertension into clinical practice and improve blood pressure (BP) control in the primary care setting. Using constrained randomization, we assigned 12 Veterans Affairs hospital outpatient clinics to four study arms: physician-level incentive; group-level incentive; combination of physician and group incentives; and no incentives (control). All participants at the hospital (cluster) were assigned to the same study arm. We enrolled 83 full-time primary care physicians and 42 non-physician personnel. The intervention consisted of an educational session about guideline-recommended care for hypertension, five audit and feedback reports, and five disbursements of incentive payments. Incentive payments rewarded participants for chart-documented use of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications, BP control, and appropriate responses to uncontrolled BP during a prior four-month performance period over the 20-month intervention. To identify potential unintended consequences of the incentives, the study team interviewed study participants, as well as non-participant primary care personnel and leadership at study sites. Chart reviews included data collection on quality measures not related to hypertension. To evaluate the persistence of the effect of the incentives, the study design includes a washout period.DiscussionWe briefly describe the rationale for the interventions being studied, as well as the major design choices. Rigorous research designs such as the one described here are necessary to determine whether performance-based payment arrangements such as financial incentives result in meaningful quality improvements.Trial registrationhttp://www.clinicaltrials.govNCT00302718.

Project description:There is concern that performance measures, patient ratings of their care, and pay-for-performance programs may penalize healthcare providers of patients with multiple chronic coexisting conditions. We examined the impact of coexisting conditions on the quality of care for hypertension and patient perception of overall quality of their health care.We classified 141 609 veterans with hypertension into 4 condition groups: those with hypertension-concordant (diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, dyslipidemia) and/or -discordant (arthritis, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) conditions or neither. We measured blood pressure control at the index visit, overall good quality of care for hypertension, including a follow-up interval, and patient ratings of satisfaction with their care. Associations between condition type and number of coexisting conditions on receipt of overall good quality of care were assessed with logistic regression. The relationship between patient assessment and objective measures of quality was assessed. Of the cohort, 49.5% had concordant-only comorbidities, 8.7% had discordant-only comorbidities, 25.9% had both, and 16.0% had none. Odds of receiving overall good quality after adjustment for age were higher for those with concordant comorbidities (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.70 to 1.87), discordant comorbidities (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.41), or both (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 2.13 to 2.38) compared with neither. Findings did not change after adjustment for illness severity and/or number of primary care and specialty care visits. Patient assessment of quality did not vary by the presence of coexisting conditions and was not related to objective ratings of quality of care.Contrary to expectations, patients with greater complexity had higher odds of receiving high-quality care for hypertension. Subjective ratings of care did not vary with the presence or absence of comorbid conditions. Our findings should be reassuring to those who care for the most medically complex patients and are concerned that they will be penalized by performance measures or patient ratings of their care.

Project description:ImportancePolicy makers have sought to discourage concurrent prescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines (coprescribing) because it is associated with overdose. Email alerts sent by pharmacists may reduce coprescribing, but this intervention lacks randomized evidence.ObjectiveTo investigate whether pharmacist emails to practitioners caring for patients who recently received opioids and benzodiazepines reduce coprescribing of these medications.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial (intention to treat) conducted in 2019-2021 of patients and their practitioners (prescribers and primary care managers) in the National Capital Region of the Military Health System. Participants were 2237 patients who were recently coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines. These patients had 789 practitioners eligible for emails.InterventionsPatients were randomized to email alerts to their practitioners or as-usual care. Clinical pharmacists sent the email alert. Messages were standardized and designed to facilitate coordination between practitioners, increase awareness of guidelines, and provide action steps and resources.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were patients' days received of opioids, benzodiazepines, and concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines during the 90 days following enrollment evaluated using 1-sided hypothesis tests. Secondary outcomes included total prescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines by patients' practitioners, including to patients outside the study, to test for broader outcomes on their prescribing.ResultsOf 2237 patients, 1187 were assigned to treatment and 1050 to control; 1275 (57%) were women. Patients received a mean (SD) of 31 (44) days of opioids and 33 (34) days of benzodiazepines in the 90 days before enrollment. There were no detected differences in the primary end points, including patients' receipt of opioids (adjusted difference, 1.1 days; 95% CI, -∞ to 3.0; P = .81), benzodiazepines (adjusted difference, -0.6 days; 95% CI, -∞ to 1.4; P = .30), and opioids and benzodiazepines together (adjusted difference, -0.1 days; 95% CI, -∞ to 0.7; P = .41). Of 789 practitioners, 429 were considered the treatment group, 325 were considered controls, and 35 were excluded. There were no detected differences in practitioners' total prescribing of opioids, benzodiazepines, or both drug classes together.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of pharmacist emails to practitioners, email alerts failed to detectably reduce coprescribing, highlighting the value of alternative approaches. Combining randomization with quality improvement activities may help stakeholders seeking evidence-based interventions to encourage guideline-concordant care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03887247.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative management of hypertension by primary care-pharmacist teams in community-based clinics. STUDY DESIGN: A 12-month prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial in the Providence Primary Care Research Network of patients with hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure. METHODS: As compared to usual primary care, intervention consisted of pharmacy practitioners participating in the active management of hypertension in the primary care office according to established collaborative treatment protocols. At baseline, there was no significant difference in blood pressure between groups. Primary outcome measures were the differences in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures between arms at study end. Secondary measures included blood pressure goal attainment (<140/90 mmHg), hypertension-related knowledge, medication adherence, home blood pressure monitoring, resource utilization, quality of life, and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 463 subjects were enrolled (n = 233 control, n = 230 intervention). Subjects receiving the intervention achieved significantly lower systolic (p = 0.007) and diastolic (p = 0.002) blood pressures compared to control (137/75 mmHg vs. 143/78 mmHg). In addition, 62% of intervention subjects achieved target blood pressure compared to 44% of control subjects (p = 0.003). The intervention group received more total office visits (7.2 vs. 4.9, p < 0.0001), however had fewer physician visits (3.2 vs. 4.7, p < 0.0001) compared to control. Intervention subjects were prescribed more antihypertensive medications (2.7 vs. 2.4, p = 0.02), but did not take more antihypertensive pills per day (2.4 vs. 2.5, p = 0.87). There were minimal differences between groups in hypertension-related knowledge, medication adherence, quality of life, or satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Patients randomized to collaborative primary care-pharmacist hypertension management achieved significantly better blood pressure control compared to usual care with no difference in quality of life or satisfaction.

Dataset Information

Pay-for-performance remuneration for pharmacist prescribers' management of hypertension: A substudy of the RxACTION trial.

Publications

Pay-for-performance remuneration for pharmacist prescribers' management of hypertension: A substudy of the RxACTION trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets