Background: Emergency medicine pharmacists (EMPs) are uniquely positioned to affect pharmacotherapy choices for a wide variety of patients, ranging from the critically ill to those requiring only minor outpatient care. The beneficial impact of EMP prospective review of prescriptions written from the emergency department (ED) is well documented. This paper describes the impact of EMP triage of medication related phone calls from caregivers and community pharmacies after patient discharge from a pediatric ED.
Methods: In December 2014, a collaborative practice agreement (CPA) was implemented that authorized EMPs to triage all medication related calls received by the ED. The protocol was approved by the ED medical director and the medical center P&T committee. Under the CPA, EMPs may authorize specific changes to discharge prescriptions: limited rounding of doses; changes in dosage form; substitution of drug concentration or strength; and therapeutic substitutions due to cost or third-party payer formulary requirements. EMPs could also act as prescriber designated agents to communicate prescription information and clarifications to retail pharmacies. Any interventions not authorized by the protocol were discussed with an ED provider. EMP triaged calls were documented as interventions in the medical record, including reason for the call and actions taken. Interventions from December 2014 to January 2016 were tabulated for descriptive statistics of the quantity and nature of these calls, the number of calls handled independently by an EMP per protocol, and the number of secondary interventions made.
Results: A total of 1,515 unique calls were documented during the 14-month period: 1,052 from outpatient pharmacies; 446 from patients/caregivers; and 17 from other sources. The most common reasons for these calls were expected prescriptions not received by an outpatient pharmacy (n=323); insurance formulary or cost related issues (n=290); verification of prescription information (n=243); general questions (n=99); medication unavailability (n=64); requests to use an alternate pharmacy (n=63); requests to change dosage forms (n=33); and unclear or incorrect quantity/day supply (n=125), drug concentration/strength (n=58), or directions (n=54). The majority of the calls (n=1,154; 76%) were handled independently by EMPs through provision of information and order clarification (n=766) or protocol-based changes (n=391). Additionally, 49 secondary interventions were identified and addressed by EMP review of the original prescription.
Conclusions: A collaborative practice agreement was successfully implemented in a pediatric ED that allowed EMPs to continue positively impacting patient care even after discharge. This protocol has improved patient and community access to a qualified, knowledgeable care provider while reducing call burden on ED providers. Prior to this process change, all calls were triaged by unit secretaries and routed directly to the providers. The ED team is currently working with hospital information technology personnel to improve e-prescription transmission to address the most common cause for medication related calls.
