Telephone follow-up of patients receiving antibiotic prescriptions from community pharmacies
The impact of a community pharmacist telephone follow-up intervention (PTFI) on clinical outcomes, pharmaceutical care, and costs for patients undergoing antibiotic treatment was studied. Patients receiving usual pharmacist intervention (UPI) were compared with PTFI patients in a multicenter, random...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of health-system pharmacy 2006-03, Vol.63 (6), p.557-563 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The impact of a community pharmacist telephone follow-up intervention (PTFI) on clinical outcomes, pharmaceutical care, and costs for patients undergoing antibiotic treatment was studied.
Patients receiving usual pharmacist intervention (UPI) were compared with PTFI patients in a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.
Compared with the UPI group (n = 129), the PTFI group (n = 126) had more drug-related problems (DRPs) (PTFI = 53%, UPI = 8%; p < 0.001). Oral recommendations (PTFI = 52%, UPI = 6%; p < 0.001), as well as recognized (PTFI = 10%, UPI = 2%; p = 0.015) and study-specific (PTFI = 5%, UPI = 1%; p = 0.064) pharmaceutical advices, were issued for more patients. The mean difference in the change in the number of infectious symptoms between the two groups (-0.24 symptom, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.22 to 0.74) and the change in the infection severity score (mean difference = -0.05 unit, 95% CI = -0.35 to 0.25) were small and not statistically significant. Adherence to treatment and patient satisfaction did not differ across the two intervention groups. The incremental direct costs of the PTFI varied from $2.65 to $5.11 (Canadian dollars) per patient, depending on whether cognitive services were reimbursed.
A telephone follow-up by community pharmacists during antibiotic therapy was simple and quick and created opportunities to intervene with patients, but it did not create a greater change in the number of infectious symptoms or the infection severity score than did usual care. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1079-2082 1535-2900 |
DOI: | 10.2146/ajhp050177 |