Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 924–933 | Cite as

Evaluation of a training and communication-network nephrology program for community pharmacists

  • Lyne LalondeEmail author
  • Michelle Normandeau
  • Diane Lamarre
  • Anne Lord
  • Djamal Berbiche
  • Louise Corneille
  • Louis Prud’homme
  • Marie-Claude Laliberté
Research Article

Abstract

Objectives To assess the feasibility and impact of implementing ProFiL program to optimize community-pharmacist management of drug-related problems among chronic kidney disease patients followed in a predialysis clinic. The program comprises a training workshop, communication-network program and consultation service. Setting Forty-two community pharmacies, 101 pharmacists, and 90 chronic kidney disease patients attending a predialysis clinic in Laval (Canada). Patients were followed-up for 6 months. Method In a six-month, pilot, open, cluster-randomized controlled trial, community pharmacies were assigned to ProFiL or the usual care. Chronic kidney disease patients of these pharmacies attending a predialysis clinic were recruited. ProFiL pharmacists attended a workshop, received patient information (diagnoses, medications, and laboratory-test results) and had access to a consultation service. Their knowledge and satisfaction were measured before and after the workshop. The mean numbers of pharmacists’ written recommendations to physicians (pharmaceutical opinions) and refusals to dispense a medication were computed. Results Of the ProFiL pharmacists, 84% attended the workshop; their knowledge increased from 52% to 88% (95% CI: 29–40%). Most ProFiL pharmacists rated workshop (95%), communication program (82%) and consultation service (59%) as “excellent” or “very good”; 82% said the program improved the quality of their follow-up. The consultation service received 21 requests. ProFiL and usual care pharmacists issued a mean of 0.50 and 0.02 opinion/patient, respectively, (95% CI of the adjusted difference: 0.28–1.01 opinion/patient). Conclusion The results of this pilot study suggest that ProFiL can be implemented and may help community pharmacists intervene more frequently to manage drug-related problems. However, a larger-scale study with longer follow-up is necessary to evaluate the impact of the program on management of drug-related problems and its clinical relevance.

Keywords

Canada Chronic kidney disease Cluster-randomized controlled trial Community pharmacy Drug-related problems Pharmaceutical care Pharmacist education 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank all the pharmacists, physicians, and patients involved in this study, Nathalie Caron for her excellent work and constant support and Chantal Legris for her assistance in the preparation of this article.

Funding

Dr. Lyne Lalonde is a scientist supported by the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec. Unrestricted research grants were received from the Bourse du Cercle du Doyen (Faculty of pharmacy, University of Montreal), and Pfizer Canada Inc.; unrestricted educational grants were received from Amgen Canada Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi-Synthelabo, Hoffmann-La Roche Limitée, LEO Pharma Inc., Merck Frosst Canada & Co, Pharmaceutical Partners of Canada Inc., Pro Doc Ltée, Sabex, and Shire BioChem Inc.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Schoolwerth AC, Engelgau MM, Hostetter TH, Rufo KH, Chianchiano D, McClellan WM, et al. Chronic kidney disease: a public health problem that needs a public health action plan. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006;3:A57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thanamayooran S, Rose C, Hirsch DJ. Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary kidney disease clinic in achieving treatment guideline targets. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20:2385–93. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfi024.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wavamunno MD, Harris DC. The need for early nephrology referral. Kidney Int Suppl. 2005;67:S128–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.09429.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson CA, Levey AS, Coresh J, Levin A, Lau J, Eknoyan G. Clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease in adults: Part I. Definition, disease stages, evaluation, treatment, and risk factors. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70:869–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laliberté MC, Normandeau M, Lord A, Lamarre D, Cantin I, Berbiche D, et al. Use of over-the-counter medications and natural products in patients with moderate and severe chronic renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;49:245–56. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.11.023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Manley HJ, McClaran ML, Overbay DK, Wright MA, Reid GM, Bender WL, et al. Factors associated with medication-related problems in ambulatory hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;41:386–93. doi: 10.1053/ajkd.2003.50048.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manley HJ, Cannella CA, Bailie GR, St Peter WL. Medication-related problems in ambulatory hemodialysis patients: a pooled analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46:669–80. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.07.001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bennett RE, DeHart RM, Lauderdale SA. Survey of care provided by ambulatory care pharmacists to patients with chronic kidney disease. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2006;63:2123–7. doi: 10.2146/ajhp050522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for management of dyslipidemias in patients with kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;41:I-IV, S1–91.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for bone metabolism and disease in chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;42:S1–201.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39:S1–266.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    IV. NKF-K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for anemia of chronic kidney disease: update 2000. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;37:S182–238. doi: 10.1016/S0272-6386(01)70008-X.
  13. 13.
    Philipneri MD, Rocca Rey LA, Schnitzler MA, Abbott KC, Brennan DC, Takemoto SK, et al. Delivery patterns of recommended chronic kidney disease care in clinical practice: administrative claims-based analysis and systematic literature review. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2008;12:41–52. doi: 10.1007/s10157-007-0016-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zillich AJ, Saseen JJ, Dehart RM, Dumo P, Grabe DW, Gilmartin C, et al. Caring for patients with chronic kidney disease: a joint opinion of the ambulatory care and the nephrology practice and research networks of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. Pharmacotherapy. 2005;25:123–43. doi: 10.1592/phco.25.1.123.55628.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones EJ, Mackinnon NJ, Tsuyuki RT. Pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies: practice and research in Canada. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39:1527–33. doi: 10.1345/aph.1E456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kröger E, Moisan J, Grégoire JP. Billing for cognitive services: understanding Quebec pharmacists’ behavior. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34:309–16. doi: 10.1345/aph.19133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rapports d’études et statistiques, Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec. Available at: http://www.ramq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/statistiques/index.shtml. Accessed 14 July 2008.
  18. 18.
    Matzke GR, St Peter WL, Comstock TJ, Foote EF. Nephrology pharmaceutical care preceptorship: a programmatic and clinical outcomes assessment. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34:593–9. doi: 10.1345/aph.19245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rouleau R, Beauchesne MF, Laurier C. Impact of a continuing education program on community pharmacists’ interventions and asthma medication use: a pilot study. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41:574–80. doi: 10.1345/aph.1H606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dolovich L, Sabharwal M, Agro K, Foster G, Lee A, McCarthy L, et al. The effect of pharmacist education on asthma treatment plans for simulated patients. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29:228–39. doi: 10.1007/s11096-006-9080-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murray DM. Planning the analysis. In: Murray DM, editor. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials (ISBN 0–19-512036–1). UK: Oxford University Press; 1998. p. 77–130.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riley KD, Wazny LD. Assessment of a fax document for transfer of medication information to family physicians and community pharmacists caring for hemodialysis outpatients. CANNT J. 2006;16:24–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paquette-Lamontagne N, McLean WM, Besse L, Cusson J. Evaluation of a new integrated discharge prescription form. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35:953–8. doi: 10.1345/aph.10244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pickrell L, Duggan C, Dhillon S. From hospital admission to discharge: an exploratory study to evaluate seamless care. Pharm J. 2001;267:650–3.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Duggan C, Feldman R, Hough J, Bates I. Reducing adverse prescribing discrepancies following hospital discharge. Int J Pharm Pract. 1998;6:77–82.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schnipper JL, Kirwin JL, Cotugno MC, Wahlstrom SA, Brown BA, Tarvin E, et al. Role of pharmacist counseling in preventing adverse drug events after hospitalization. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:565–71. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.5.565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McLean W. Experience with a new prescription and discharge note form to improve seamless care. Can J Hosp Pharm. 1997;50:257. letter.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liddell MJ, Goldman SP. Attitudes to and use of a modified prescription form by general practitioners and pharmacists. Med J Aust. 1998;168:322–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Teich JM, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1998;280:1311–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.15.1311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Klar N, Donner A. Current and future challenges in the design and analysis of cluster randomization trials. Stat Med. 2001;20:3729–40. doi: 10.1002/sim.1115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moore H, Summerbell C, Vail A, Greenwood DC, Adamson AJ. The design features and practicalities of conducting a pragmatic cluster randomized trial of obesity management in primary care. Stat Med. 2001;20:331–40. doi :10.1002/1097-0258(20010215)20:3<331::AID-SIM795>3.0.CO;2-K.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Puffer S, Torgerson D, Watson J. Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals. BMJ. 2003;327:785–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7418.785.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hahn S, Puffer S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J. Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Torgerson DJ. Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer? BMJ. 2001;322:355–7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7282.355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lyne Lalonde
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Michelle Normandeau
    • 4
  • Diane Lamarre
    • 1
  • Anne Lord
    • 5
  • Djamal Berbiche
    • 2
  • Louise Corneille
    • 5
  • Louis Prud’homme
    • 5
  • Marie-Claude Laliberté
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Research Team in Primary CareCentre de santé et de services sociaux de LavalLavalCanada
  3. 3.Sanofi-Aventis Endowment Chair in Ambulatory Pharmaceutical Care, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Montreal’s Public Health DepartmentMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Laval, Hôpital de la Cité-de-la-SantéLavalCanada

Personalised recommendations