Martin A Bishop, Hsien-Yen Chang, Christopher Kitchen, Chintan J Pandya, Dannielle Brown, Jonathan P Weiner, Kenneth M Shermock, Kimberly A Gudzune
{"title":"Validation of an algorithm to prioritize patients for comprehensive medication management in primary care settings.","authors":"Martin A Bishop, Hsien-Yen Chang, Christopher Kitchen, Chintan J Pandya, Dannielle Brown, Jonathan P Weiner, Kenneth M Shermock, Kimberly A Gudzune","doi":"10.1007/s11096-024-01770-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Comprehensive medication management (CMM) programs optimize the effectiveness and safety of patients' medication regimens, but CMM may be underutilized. Whether healthcare claims data can identify patients appropriate for CMM is not well-studied.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Determine the face validity of a claims-based algorithm to prioritize patients who likely need CMM.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used claims data to construct patient-level markers of \"regimen complexity\" and \"high-risk for adverse effects,\" which were combined to define four categories of claims-based CMM-need (very likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely) among 180 patient records. Three clinicians independently reviewed each record to assess CMM need. We assessed concordance between the claims-based and clinician-review CMM need by calculating percent agreement as well as kappa statistic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most records identified as 'very likely' (90%) by claims-based markers were identified by clinician-reviewers as needing CMM. Few records within the 'very unlikely' group (5%) were identified by clinician-reviewers as needing CMM. Interrater agreement between CMM-based algorithm and clinician review was moderate in strength (kappa = 0.6, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Claims-based pharmacy measures may offer a valid approach to prioritize patients into CMM-need groups. Further testing of this algorithm is needed prior to implementation in clinic settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":13828,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":"1232-1236"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01770-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Comprehensive medication management (CMM) programs optimize the effectiveness and safety of patients' medication regimens, but CMM may be underutilized. Whether healthcare claims data can identify patients appropriate for CMM is not well-studied.
Aim: Determine the face validity of a claims-based algorithm to prioritize patients who likely need CMM.
Method: We used claims data to construct patient-level markers of "regimen complexity" and "high-risk for adverse effects," which were combined to define four categories of claims-based CMM-need (very likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely) among 180 patient records. Three clinicians independently reviewed each record to assess CMM need. We assessed concordance between the claims-based and clinician-review CMM need by calculating percent agreement as well as kappa statistic.
Results: Most records identified as 'very likely' (90%) by claims-based markers were identified by clinician-reviewers as needing CMM. Few records within the 'very unlikely' group (5%) were identified by clinician-reviewers as needing CMM. Interrater agreement between CMM-based algorithm and clinician review was moderate in strength (kappa = 0.6, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Claims-based pharmacy measures may offer a valid approach to prioritize patients into CMM-need groups. Further testing of this algorithm is needed prior to implementation in clinic settings.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (IJCP) offers a platform for articles on research in Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Care and related practice-oriented subjects in the pharmaceutical sciences.
IJCP is a bi-monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research data, new ideas and discussions on pharmacotherapy and outcome research, clinical pharmacy, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, the clinical use of medicines, medical devices and laboratory tests, information on medicines and medical devices information, pharmacy services research, medication management, other clinical aspects of pharmacy.
IJCP publishes original Research articles, Review articles , Short research reports, Commentaries, book reviews, and Letters to the Editor.
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy is affiliated with the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP). ESCP promotes practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy, especially in Europe. The general aim of the society is to advance education, practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy .
Until 2010 the journal was called Pharmacy World & Science.