A cluster randomized trial to evaluate a centralized remote clinical pharmacy service in large, health system primary care clinics. Issue 10 (26th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kennelty, Korey A.; Coffey, Christopher S.; Ardery, Gail; Uribe, Liz; Yankey, Jon; Ecklund, Dixie; James, Paul A.; Vander Weg, Mark W.; Chrischilles, Elizabeth A.; Christensen, Alan J.; Polgreen, Linnea A.; Gryzlak, Brian; Carter, Barry L.
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. Volume 4:Issue 10(2021)
• Page Start: 1287
• Page End: 1299
• Publication Date: 2021-07-26
• Subjects: health services -- high blood pressure -- hypertension; Pharmacy -- Periodicals; Pharmacy Service, Hospital; Periodicals; Electronic journals; Periodical; 615.105
• DOI: 10.1002/jac5.1497
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2574-9870

Abstract

Abstract: Background: We developed a remote cardiovascular risk service (CVRS) managed by clinical pharmacists to support primary care teams. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the CVRS could improve guideline adherence in primary care clinics with diverse geographic and patient characteristics. Methods: This study was a cluster‐randomized trial initiated in 20 primary care clinics across the United States. Clinics were stratified as a high or low minority and then randomized to receive the intervention or maintain usual care for 12 months. The primary outcome was adherence to relevant The Guideline Advantage (TGA) criteria met. TGA is a compilation of criteria from practice guidelines intended to improve the quality of primary care. Post‐hoc outcomes included changes in individual TGA measures. Results: A total of 401 study subjects were included in the analysis. Mean TGA scores remained the same in the intervention group (n = 193, 0.72) and slightly decreased in the usual care group (n = 208, 0.67‐0.66) over the 12‐month study period. There was no significant difference between the mean TGA scores in the intervention and usual care groups for the overall population at 12 months (0.72 vs 0.66, respectively, P = .10). For under‐represented minority subjects, there was no significant difference between TGA scores at 12 months (n = 186; 0.70 vs 0.67, respectively, P = .50). In a post‐hoc analysis of subjects uncontrolled at baseline, there was a significant improvement in systolic BP at 12 months in the intervention group vs usual care (model‐based difference of −8.03 mmHg, P = .03). Conclusions: Improvements in individual TGA measures were limited, in part, due to higher‐than‐expected baseline TGA scores. Future studies of this model should focus on patients with uncontrolled conditions at high risk for cardiovascular events. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02215408; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02215408?id=NCT02215408 .