Background: Blood pressure (BP) control in patients with diabetes mellitus is difficult to achieve and current patterns are suboptimal. Given increasing problems with access to primary care physicians, community pharmacists and nurses are well positioned to identify and observe these patients. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a community-based multidisciplinary intervention on BP control in patients with diabetes mellitus.Methods: We performed a randomized controlled trial in 14 community pharmacies in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, of patients with diabetes who had BPs higher than 130/80 mm Hg on 2 consecutive visits 2 weeks apart. Care from a pharmacist and nurse team included a wallet card with recorded BP measures, cardiovascular risk reduction education and counseling, a hypertension education pamphlet, referral to the patient's primary care physician for further assessment or management, a 1-page local opinion leader-endorsed evidence summary sent to the physician reinforcing the guideline recommendations for the treatment of hypertension and diabetes, and 4 follow-up visits throughout 6 months. Control-arm patients received a BP wallet card, a pamphlet on diabetes, general diabetes advice, and usual care by their physi-cian. The primary outcome measure was the difference in change in systolic BP between the 2 groups at 6 months.Results: A total of 227 eligible patients were randomized to intervention and control arms between May 5, 2005, and September 1, 2006. The mean (SD) patient age was 64.9 (12.1) years, 59.9% were male, and the mean (SD) baseline systolic/diastolic BP was 141.2 (13.9)/ 77.3 (8.9) mm Hg at baseline. The intervention group had an adjusted mean (SE) greater reduction in systolic BP at 6 months of 5.6 (2.1) mm Hg compared with controls (P =.008). In the subgroup of patients with a systolic BP greater than 160 mm Hg at baseline, BP was reduced by an adjusted mean (SE) of 24.1 (1.9) mm Hg more in intervention patients than in controls (PϽ.001). Conclusion:Even in patients who have diabetes and hypertension that are relatively well controlled, a pharmacist and nurse team-based intervention resulted in a clinically important improvement in BP.

While collaborative, team-based care has the potential to improve medication use and reduce adverse drug events and cost, less attention is paid to understanding the processes of well functioning teams. This paper presents the findings from key informant interviews and reflective journaling from pharmacists, physicians and nurse practitioners participating in a multicentre, controlled clinical trial of team-based pharmacist care in hospitalized medical patients. A phenomenological approach guided the data analysis and content analysis was the primary tool for unitizing, categorizing and identifying emerging themes. Pharmacists experienced highs (developing trusting relationships and making positive contributions to patient care) and lows (struggling with documentation and workload) during integration into the medical care team. From the perspective of the participating pharmacists, nurse practitioners and physicians, the integration of pharmacists into the teams was felt to have facilitated positive patient outcomes by improving team drug-therapy decision-making, continuity of care and patient safety. Additionally, the study increased the awareness of all team members' potential roles so that pharmacists, nurses and physicians could play a part in and benefit from working together as a team. Focussed attention on how practice is structured, team process and ongoing support would enable successful implementation of team-based care in a larger context. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00351676).

BackgroundIn 2007, Alberta became the first Canadian jurisdiction to grant pharmacists a wide range of prescribing privileges. Our objective was to understand what factors influence pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing using a model for the Diffusion of Innovations in healthcare services.MethodsPharmacists participated in semi-structured telephone interviews to discuss their prescribing practices and explore the facilitators and barriers to implementation. Pharmacists working in community, hospital, PCN, or other settings were selected using a mix of random and purposive sampling. Two investigators independently analyzed each transcript using an Interpretive Description approach to identify themes. Analyses were informed by a model explaining the Diffusion of Innovations in health service organizations.ResultsThirty-eight participants were interviewed. Prescribing behaviours varied from non-adoption through to product, disease, and patient focused use of prescribing. Pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing was dependent on the innovation itself, adopter, system readiness, and communication and influence. Adopting pharmacists viewed prescribing as a legitimization of previous practice and advantageous to instrumental daily tasks. The complexity of knowledge required for prescribing increased respectively in product, disease and patient focused prescribing scenarios. Individual adopters had higher levels of self-efficacy toward prescribing skills. At a system level, pharmacists who were in practice settings that were patient focused were more likely to adopt advanced prescribing practices, over those in product-focused settings. All pharmacists stated that physician relationships impacted their prescribing behaviours and individual pharmacists’ decisions to apply for independent prescribing privileges.ConclusionsDiffusion of Innovations theory was helpful in understanding the multifaceted nature of pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing. The characteristics of the prescribing model itself which legitimized prior practices, the model of practice in a pharmacy setting, and relationships with physicians were prominent influences on pharmacists’ prescribing behaviours.

Two of our patients experienced myotoxicity associated with colchicine administration. The first was a 54-year-old woman who was receiving dialysis and came to the emergency department with progressive generalized weakness and vomiting. She recently had taken colchicine for the treatment of gout. Physical examination revealed proximal muscle weakness and tenderness on palpation. Her creatine kinase (CK), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels were elevated at 7185, 563, and 541 U/L, respectively. Drug-induced myopathy was suspected and colchicine was discontinued. The patient was discharged after symptom resolution 1 week later. The second patient was an 83-year-old woman with chronic renal insufficiency who came to the hospital with anorexia, diarrhea, and inability to get out of bed due to progressive weakness. Her colchicine dosage recently had been increased for gout management. Physical examination revealed generalized muscle weakness and tenderness on palpation. Her CK, ALT, and AST levels were elevated at 1797, 147, and 172 U/L, respectively. Electromyographic results were consistent with colchicine myopathy. The patient was discharged with minimal residual muscle weakness 1 week after discontinuation of colchicine. A literature search identified 82 documented cases of colchicine-induced myotoxicity. Most patients had a history of proximal weakness and pain with elevated CK, ALT, and AST levels. Onset of symptoms generally occurred days to weeks after initial administration of colchicine at the usual dosage in patients with renal impairment or a change in underlying disease state in those receiving long-term therapy. Muscle toxicity was not necessarily accompanied by gastrointestinal symptoms. Concomitantly administered drugs often were cyclosporine or corticosteroids. Diagnosis may be confirmed by electromyography or muscle biopsy. Colchicine-induced myotoxicity is a rare adverse effect but is well described in the literature. Clinicians should recognize that renal impairment is the primary risk factor for development of colchicine-induced myotoxicity, and that dosage adjustment or alternative therapy may be required.