Search

Introduction: Pharmacy practice has evolved to include direct patient care and interprofessional team models. Proper documentation of training and certification is required to verify eligibility for providing specialized services and for reimbursement. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess pharmacists’ views and perceptions on credentialing with respect to (1) familiarity and perceived importance of credentialing; (2) satisfaction with current credentialing tracking systems; and (3) challenges in adopting a centralized credentialing platform. Methods: This study used a cross-sectional, survey design to examine pharmacist perceptions of credentialing. The survey, distributed by the American Pharmacists Association from November 18, 2017 to December 2, 2017, consisted of 11 demographic items and 22 items about familiarity, importance, satisfaction and current systems of credentialing in pharmacy practice. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and outcome variables. Content analysis was conducted on freeform responses. Results: Data were analyzed from 446 (7.3%) completed surveys of the 6,144 distributed. Respondents were primarily represented by pharmacists from chain stores (29.6%), outpatient clinics (16.6%), and academic settings (15.2%). Job titles included staff pharmacist (33.9%), clinical pharmacist (21.3%), and manager positions (18.3%). Nine of 10 pharmacists reported familiarity with credentialing and considered credentialing as important to the pharmacy profession. Majority agreed with the importance of having a centralized online platform to store credentialing information (96.1%) and to obtain reimbursement (97.1%). Poor integration of data among different platforms (16%) was a common reason for dissatisfaction with current tracking systems. Most respondents (96.5%) were willing to provide information necessary for credentialing; however, over half were concerned about security of the information. Conclusions: This study was among the first to examine pharmacist perceptions of credentialing. Pharmacists in this study were familiar with and responsive to participating in credentialing process. They were also supportive of having a centralized credentialing system, but held reservations about security of information. Article Type: Original Research

Barriers to medication adherence stem from multiple factors. An effective and convenient tool is needed to identify these barriers so that clinicians can provide a tailored, patient-centered consultation with patients. The Modified Drug Adherence Work-up Tool (M-DRAW) was developed as a 13-item checklist questionnaire to identify barriers to medication adherence. The response scale was a 4-point Likert scale of frequency of occurrence (1 = never to 4 = often). The checklist was accompanied by a GUIDE that provided corresponding motivational interview-based intervention strategies for each identified barrier. The current pilot study examined the psychometric properties of the M-DRAW checklist (reliability, responsiveness and discriminant validity) in patients taking one or more prescription medication(s) for chronic conditions. A cross-sectional sample of 26 patients was recruited between December 2015 and March 2016 at an academic medical center pharmacy in Southern California. A priming question that assessed self-reported adherence was used to separate participants into the control group of 17 “adherers” (65.4%), and into the intervention group of nine “unintentional and intentional non-adherers” (34.6%). Comparable baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The M-DRAW checklist showed acceptable reliability (13 item; alpha = 0.74) for identifying factors and barriers leading to medication non-adherence. Discriminant validity of the tool and the priming question was established by the four-fold number of barriers to adherence identified within the self-selected intervention group compared to the control group (4.4 versus 1.2 barriers, p < 0.05). The current study did not investigate construct validity due to small sample size and challenges on follow-up with patients. Future testing of the tool will include construct validation.