Background Comprehensive medication review is a patient-centered approach to optimize medication use and improve patient outcomes. This study outlines a pilot model of care in which a remote corporate-based clinical pharmacist implemented comprehensive medication reviews for a cohort of medically complex home-based primary care (HBPC) patients. Method Ninety-six medically complex patients were assessed for medication-related problems. Data collected on these patients were: number of chronic conditions, number of medications, appropriate indication for each medication, dose appropriateness, drug interactions, recommendations for medication optimization and deprescribing. The number of accepted recommendations by the HBPC practice was analyzed. Results On average, the patients were 82 years old and had 13 chronic conditions. They were taking a median of 17 medications. Over a four-month pilot period, 175 medication recommendations were made, and 53 (30.3%) of them were accepted, with most common being medication discontinuation, deprescribing, and dose adjustments. Sixty-four (66.7%) patients were on a medication listed as potentially inappropriate for use in older adults. The most common potentially inappropriate medication was a proton-pump inhibitor (38.5%), followed by aspirin (24%), tramadol (15.6%), a benzodiazepine (13.5%) or an opioid (8.3%). Eighty-one medications were recommended for deprescribing and 27 medications were discontinued (33.3%). There were 24 recommended dose adjustments and 11 medications were dose adjusted (45.8%). Thirty-four medications were suggested as an addition to the current patient regimen, 2 medications were added (5.9%). Conclusion Pharmacist comprehensive medication review is a necessary component of the HBPC healthcare continuum. Additional research is needed to examine whether aligning pharmacists to deliver support to HBPC improves clinical outcomes, reduces healthcare expenditures and improves the patient’s experience.

No abstract

Objective: To develop and implement antibiotic stewardship activities in urgent care targeting non–antibiotic-appropriate acute respiratory tract infections (ARIs) that also reduces overall antibiotic prescribing and maintains patient satisfaction. Patients and setting: Patients and clinicians at the urgent care clinics of an integrated academic health system. Intervention and methods: The stewardship activities started in fiscal 2020 and included measure development, comparative feedback, and clinician and patient education. We measured antibiotic prescribing in fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021 for the stewardship targets, potential diagnosis-shifting visits, and overall. We also collected patient satisfaction data for ARI visits. Results: From FY19 to FY21, 576,609 patients made 1,358,816 visits to 17 urgent care clinics, including 105,781 visits for which stewardship measures were applied and 149,691 visits for which diagnosis shifting measures were applied. The antibiotic prescribing rate decreased for stewardship-measure visits from 34% in FY19 to 12% in FY21 (absolute change, −22%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −23% to −22%). The antibiotic prescribing rate decreased for diagnosis-shifting visits from 63% to 35% (−28%; 95% CI, −28% to −27%), and the antibiotic prescribing rate decreased overall from 30% to 10% (−20%; 95% CI, −20% to −20%). The patient satisfaction rate increased from 83% in FY19 to 89% in FY20 and FY21. There was no significant association between antibiotic prescribing rates of individual clinicians and ARI visit patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Although it was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, an ambulatory antimicrobial stewardship program that focused on improving non–antibiotic-appropriate ARI prescribing was associated with decreased prescribing for (1) the stewardship target, (2) a diagnosis shifting measure, and (3) overall antibiotic prescribing. Patient satisfaction at ARI visits increased over time and was not associated with clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing rates.