Pharmacist vs physician management of e-visit requests for COVID-19 medication: A randomized clinical trial.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.2.189
Tracy A Lieu, E Margaret Warton, Andrew deLaunay, Stephanie Prausnitz, Milton Chan, Michelle R Mancha, Thao Huynh, Eric Smallberg, Charles Quesenberry, Kristine Lee, Mary Reed
{"title":"Pharmacist vs physician management of e-visit requests for COVID-19 medication: A randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Tracy A Lieu, E Margaret Warton, Andrew deLaunay, Stephanie Prausnitz, Milton Chan, Michelle R Mancha, Thao Huynh, Eric Smallberg, Charles Quesenberry, Kristine Lee, Mary Reed","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.2.189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic visits (e-visits), defined as structured asynchronous electronic messages between patients and clinicians requiring clinical decision-making, are being increasingly used to enhance access to outpatient health care services, but the primary care physicians who typically manage them face work overflow. Pharmacists have been proposed to manage e-visits that lead to prescription requests, but scant evidence exists about the effectiveness of this approach.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare pharmacist management of structured asynchronous e-visit requests for COVID-19 medication with physician management regarding quality of care, timeliness, and patient care experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cluster-randomized clinical trial included adults from 17 medical facilities of Kaiser Permanente Northern California who made e-visits requesting COVID-19 medication (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) from October 9 to December 11, 2023. In the Pharmacist Care group, a regional team of pharmacists managed e-visits for COVID-19 medication; in the Physician Care group, pools of adult and family medicine physicians managed these visits. The primary outcome was whether a patient with 1 or more potential serious drug-drug interactions received counseling via an electronic secure message. Secondary outcomes included prescribing rates, time to the prescription, and patient perceptions of care quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 1,753 eligible patients (mean age = 52.2 [SD = 15.9] years; 57.7% female), 642 received Pharmacist Care and 1,111 received Physician Care. The percentage of patients with a potential drug-drug interaction who were sent counseling messages by the clinician did not differ between the Pharmacist Care (76 of 79 [96.2%]) and Physician Care groups (193 of 201 [96.0%]) (risk difference [RD] = 0.18%; 95% CI = -4.8% to 5.2%). The pharmacist and physician groups had similar rates of prescribing (87.4% vs 84.4%; RD = 2.9; 95% CI = -0.4 to 6.3). Pharmacist Care compared with Physician Care had faster mean time from the initial e-visit submission to the resulting prescription (1.0 vs 2.5 hours; RD = -1.5; 95% CI = -1.9 to -1.2). Pharmacist Care took more clinician time per visit than Physician Care (10.7 vs 4.2 minutes), resulting in higher estimated cost ($11.40 vs $6.70). After the study period, the pharmacist team made protocol changes to improve workflow efficiency, and a follow-up analysis 12 months later found significant reductions in per-visit time (to 5.7 minutes) and estimated cost (to $6.03) under Pharmacist Care. Patient perceptions of care did not differ significantly between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pharmacist care and physician care for patient e-visits for COVID-19 medication both yielded high quality of care, with no significant group differences. Evaluation of pharmacist care may be warranted for other e-visits designed to facilitate medication prescribing.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06096863.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":"31 2","pages":"189-197"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11801361/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.2.189","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Electronic visits (e-visits), defined as structured asynchronous electronic messages between patients and clinicians requiring clinical decision-making, are being increasingly used to enhance access to outpatient health care services, but the primary care physicians who typically manage them face work overflow. Pharmacists have been proposed to manage e-visits that lead to prescription requests, but scant evidence exists about the effectiveness of this approach.

Objective: To compare pharmacist management of structured asynchronous e-visit requests for COVID-19 medication with physician management regarding quality of care, timeliness, and patient care experience.

Methods: This cluster-randomized clinical trial included adults from 17 medical facilities of Kaiser Permanente Northern California who made e-visits requesting COVID-19 medication (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) from October 9 to December 11, 2023. In the Pharmacist Care group, a regional team of pharmacists managed e-visits for COVID-19 medication; in the Physician Care group, pools of adult and family medicine physicians managed these visits. The primary outcome was whether a patient with 1 or more potential serious drug-drug interactions received counseling via an electronic secure message. Secondary outcomes included prescribing rates, time to the prescription, and patient perceptions of care quality.

Results: Among the 1,753 eligible patients (mean age = 52.2 [SD = 15.9] years; 57.7% female), 642 received Pharmacist Care and 1,111 received Physician Care. The percentage of patients with a potential drug-drug interaction who were sent counseling messages by the clinician did not differ between the Pharmacist Care (76 of 79 [96.2%]) and Physician Care groups (193 of 201 [96.0%]) (risk difference [RD] = 0.18%; 95% CI = -4.8% to 5.2%). The pharmacist and physician groups had similar rates of prescribing (87.4% vs 84.4%; RD = 2.9; 95% CI = -0.4 to 6.3). Pharmacist Care compared with Physician Care had faster mean time from the initial e-visit submission to the resulting prescription (1.0 vs 2.5 hours; RD = -1.5; 95% CI = -1.9 to -1.2). Pharmacist Care took more clinician time per visit than Physician Care (10.7 vs 4.2 minutes), resulting in higher estimated cost ($11.40 vs $6.70). After the study period, the pharmacist team made protocol changes to improve workflow efficiency, and a follow-up analysis 12 months later found significant reductions in per-visit time (to 5.7 minutes) and estimated cost (to $6.03) under Pharmacist Care. Patient perceptions of care did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusions: Pharmacist care and physician care for patient e-visits for COVID-19 medication both yielded high quality of care, with no significant group differences. Evaluation of pharmacist care may be warranted for other e-visits designed to facilitate medication prescribing.

Clinical trial: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06096863.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
The Plant Cell welcomes 2021 Assistant Features Editors.
IF 11.6 1区 化学ACS Central SciencePub Date : 2021-03-22 DOI: 10.1093/plcell/koaa005
Nancy A Eckardt, Blake C Meyers
The Plant Cell welcomes 2022 Assistant Features Editors.
IF 11.6 1区 化学ACS Central SciencePub Date : 2022-02-03 DOI: 10.1093/plcell/koab296
Nancy A Eckardt, Blake C Meyers
The Plant Cell welcomes 2024 Assistant Features Editors.
IF 11.6 1区 生物学Plant CellPub Date : 2023-12-21 DOI: 10.1093/plcell/koad263
Nancy A Eckardt, Blake C Meyers
来源期刊
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: JMCP welcomes research studies conducted outside of the United States that are relevant to our readership. Our audience is primarily concerned with designing policies of formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs that are based on evidence from large populations of people. Studies of pharmacist interventions conducted outside the United States that have already been extensively studied within the United States and studies of small sample sizes in non-managed care environments outside of the United States (e.g., hospitals or community pharmacies) are generally of low interest to our readership. However, studies of health outcomes and costs assessed in large populations that provide evidence for formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs are of high interest to JMCP’s readership.
期刊最新文献
Use of health technology assessments in specialty drug coverage decisions by US commercial health plans. Cost-effectiveness of caplacizumab in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura in the United States. The impact of patient characteristics and social drivers of health factors on oral oncolytic adherence. Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell vs standard therapy for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in the United States. Evaluating the uptake of a Global Initiative for Asthma guideline update in a commercially insured, value-based care population.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1