Appropriateness of Repeated Clinical Alerts to Add Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy in Diabetic Patients with Medicare Part D Coverage

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/614189
Title:
Appropriateness of Repeated Clinical Alerts to Add Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy in Diabetic Patients with Medicare Part D Coverage
Author:
Hryshko, Patrick; Johnson, Zac; Scovis, Nicki
Affiliation:
College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona
Issue Date:
2014
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author.
Collection Information:
This item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Associate Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, jenmartin@email.arizona.edu.
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Abstract:
Specific Aims: To identify reasons that an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) would not be indicated in diabetic patients with repeated clinical alerts to add ACEi therapy for preservation of renal function and/or hypertension. In addition, to identify if these repeated clinical alerts to add ACEi therapy are appropriate. Methods: Eligible patient charts were reviewed by researchers using a data dictionary to complete a standardized spreadsheet with patient demographic information (age, gender, and location), type of diabetes mellitus, evidence indicative of comorbid hypertension, action taken by pharmacist in response to clinical alert (letter sent to patient and letter sent to prescriber), and rationale of that action. This data, along with SOAP notes of patient interactions, was used by researchers to classify the repeated clinical alert as appropriate or inappropriate. Main Results: There were a total of 200 charts reviewed (male n = 61 (30.5%), female n = 139 (69.5%), mean age = 70 ± 11 years). Reasons for not contacting patients again include previous failure or adverse drug reaction (n = 62, 31.0%), patient did not meet call script requirements (n = 55, 27.5%), patient did not have diabetes or hypertension (n = 20, 10.0%), potential drug-disease interaction (n = 17, 8.5%), overlapping or previously addressed alerts (1.9%), or documentation was provided for “other” reasons (n = 43, 21.5%). The previous failure or adverse drug reaction rationale was appropriate in 32 of 62 repeated clinical alerts (52%; χ2= 10.15). The patient did not have diabetes or hypertension rationale was appropriate in 11 of 20 repeated clinical alerts (55%, χ2= 2.72). The potential drug-disease interaction rationale was appropriate in 3 of 17 repeated clinical alerts (8%, χ2= 9.89). The patient did not meet call script requirements rationale was appropriate in 31 of 55 repeated clinical alerts (56%, χ2= 6.91). The overlapping or previous alerts rationale was appropriate in 2 of 3 repeated clinical alerts (67%, χ2= 0.18). The “other” rationale were appropriate in 22 of 43 repeated clinical alerts (51%, χ2= 7.21) Overall, retrigger alerts were considered appropriate 50.5% of the time compared to the predicted value of 90% (χ2= 347 > critical value = 3.84 for p = 0.05 Conclusion: There are multiple reasons pharmacists do not recommend initiating ACEi therapy in patients with diabetes. Although the Medication Management Center (MMC) has rationale of these reasons documented after individual patient interactions, there are still several reasons why a retrigger alert would be appropriate despite that rationale. In addition, retrigger alerts were not considered appropriate as frequently as expected.
Description:
Class of 2014 Abstract
Keywords:
angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi); Diabetic; Medicare Part D Coverage; Alerts
Advisor:
Scovis, Nicki

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.advisorScovis, Nickien
dc.contributor.authorHryshko, Patricken
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Zacen
dc.contributor.authorScovis, Nickien
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-22T19:59:15Z-
dc.date.available2016-06-22T19:59:15Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/614189-
dc.descriptionClass of 2014 Abstracten
dc.description.abstractSpecific Aims: To identify reasons that an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) would not be indicated in diabetic patients with repeated clinical alerts to add ACEi therapy for preservation of renal function and/or hypertension. In addition, to identify if these repeated clinical alerts to add ACEi therapy are appropriate. Methods: Eligible patient charts were reviewed by researchers using a data dictionary to complete a standardized spreadsheet with patient demographic information (age, gender, and location), type of diabetes mellitus, evidence indicative of comorbid hypertension, action taken by pharmacist in response to clinical alert (letter sent to patient and letter sent to prescriber), and rationale of that action. This data, along with SOAP notes of patient interactions, was used by researchers to classify the repeated clinical alert as appropriate or inappropriate. Main Results: There were a total of 200 charts reviewed (male n = 61 (30.5%), female n = 139 (69.5%), mean age = 70 ± 11 years). Reasons for not contacting patients again include previous failure or adverse drug reaction (n = 62, 31.0%), patient did not meet call script requirements (n = 55, 27.5%), patient did not have diabetes or hypertension (n = 20, 10.0%), potential drug-disease interaction (n = 17, 8.5%), overlapping or previously addressed alerts (1.9%), or documentation was provided for “other” reasons (n = 43, 21.5%). The previous failure or adverse drug reaction rationale was appropriate in 32 of 62 repeated clinical alerts (52%; χ2= 10.15). The patient did not have diabetes or hypertension rationale was appropriate in 11 of 20 repeated clinical alerts (55%, χ2= 2.72). The potential drug-disease interaction rationale was appropriate in 3 of 17 repeated clinical alerts (8%, χ2= 9.89). The patient did not meet call script requirements rationale was appropriate in 31 of 55 repeated clinical alerts (56%, χ2= 6.91). The overlapping or previous alerts rationale was appropriate in 2 of 3 repeated clinical alerts (67%, χ2= 0.18). The “other” rationale were appropriate in 22 of 43 repeated clinical alerts (51%, χ2= 7.21) Overall, retrigger alerts were considered appropriate 50.5% of the time compared to the predicted value of 90% (χ2= 347 > critical value = 3.84 for p = 0.05 Conclusion: There are multiple reasons pharmacists do not recommend initiating ACEi therapy in patients with diabetes. Although the Medication Management Center (MMC) has rationale of these reasons documented after individual patient interactions, there are still several reasons why a retrigger alert would be appropriate despite that rationale. In addition, retrigger alerts were not considered appropriate as frequently as expected.en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author.en
dc.subjectangiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)en
dc.subjectDiabeticen
dc.subjectMedicare Part D Coverageen
dc.subjectAlertsen
dc.titleAppropriateness of Repeated Clinical Alerts to Add Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy in Diabetic Patients with Medicare Part D Coverageen_US
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Reporten
dc.contributor.departmentCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizonaen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Associate Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, jenmartin@email.arizona.edu.en
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.