Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic forced healthcare systems to rethink healthcare delivery, and forced primary care pharmacists in our healthcare system to switch all visits that were previously face to face (FTF) to telehealth. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to examine the association between medication related problems (MRPs) resolved in telehealth vs FTF primary care clinical pharmacist visits. The telehealth visits took place in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic, which forced health care systems to rethink care delivery. Data was collected for patient visits for 2 weeks in January before the pandemic and 2 weeks in June during the pandemic. Results There was significantly more average MRPs resolved per patient encounter in FTF visits compared with telehealth visits, particularly in patient encounters that were previously seen by the pharmacist, who were under 65 years old, identified as Black/African American, had chronic kidney disease but not on dialysis, diabetes with end organ damage, and had uncontrolled blood pressure and uncontrolled A1c. Conclusion These results provide a start to establish criteria for which patients should be seen by a clinical pharmacist in person vs over the phone.

Objectives: To evaluate student perspectives of a clinical controversy debate activity designed to improve their skills to effectively approach and communicate complex therapeutic dilemmas. Design: A clinical controversy debate activity was implemented in the fall semester of the third year pharmaceutical care laboratory curriculum. Topics were chosen based on controversies encountered in practice. Students were assigned to groups of 5-6 and subdivided to the pro or con of the topic. Each debate lasted 25 minutes. Students completed a self-assessment asking them to rate eight skills (e.g. selecting appropriate references, analysis of literature, defending and predicting arguments, composing and delivering the presentation, and persuading the audience) before and after the debate as: novice, developing, skilled, facilitating/leading, or educating. Results were analyzed descriptively and the pre-post ratings were compared using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. Results: 140 (84.8%) students responded to the self-assessment survey. The skill that students rated most highly prior to the debate was selecting appropriate resources and primary literature, with only 7.1% rating themselves as novice. After completing the debate, the skill rated with the greatest improvement was predicting opposing arguments with 47.1% rating as developing and 40% rating as skilled. All eight skills had statistically significant improvements pre- and post- assignment (p < 0.001). Implications: Preparing arguments for and against treatment options is an important clinical skill, used regularly by pharmacists. A clinical controversy debate activity resulted in reports of improvement on eight measures of evidence based medicine-related skills.   Type: Case Study

No abstract

While pharmacists have provided services in a multidisciplinary, primary care setting for decades, few publications have yet to evaluate providers’ impressions of- these services. An anonymous 14-item survey distributed to nonresident primary care providers aimed to identify clinical pharmacist services that are most and least helpful to primary care providers, identify barriers to pharmacy services, and develop recommendations to improve pharmacy services in primary care. The most important pharmacist contribution identified by providers is medication management, whereas the least important contributions are case conference, panel management, quality improvement, and transition of care. The primary reasons for referrals to pharmacists included inadequately controlled chronic diseases, poor or questionable adherence, longer visits for more in-depth discussion, and complex regimen requiring frequent monitoring or titration. Providers favored pharmacists working in direct patient care versus indirect patient care activities. Although many providers perceived no barriers to pharmacist service access, pharmacists’ presence and visibility were 2 barriers identified. Most providers preferred comprehensive to disease-specific medication management.

No abstract