RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Evaluation of a pharmacists' patient care process approach for hypertension
Rivera, M. D., Johnson, M., Choe, H. M., Durthaler, J. M., Elmi, J. R., Fulmer, E. B., Hawkins, N. A., Jordan, J. K., MacLeod, K. E., Ortiz, A. M., Shantharam, S. S., Yarnoff, B. O., & Soloe, C. S. (2022). Evaluation of a pharmacists' patient care process approach for hypertension. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 62(1), 100-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.06.012
INTRODUCTION: An estimated 116 million American adults (47.3%) have hypertension. Most adults with hypertension do not have it controlled-3 in 4 (92.1 million) U.S. adults with hypertension have a blood pressure ≥130/80 mmHg. The Pharmacists' Patient Care Process is a standardized patient-centered approach to the provision of pharmacist care that is done in collaboration with other healthcare providers. Through the Michigan Medicine Hypertension Pharmacists' Program, pharmacists use the Pharmacists' Patient Care Process to provide hypertension management services in collaboration with physicians in primary care and community pharmacy settings. In 2019, the impact of Michigan Medicine Hypertension Pharmacists' Program patient participation on blood pressure control was evaluated.
METHODS: Propensity scoring was used to match patients in the intervention group with patients in the comparison group and regression analyses were then conducted to compare the 2 groups on key patient outcomes. Negative binomial regression was used to examine the number of days with blood pressure under control. The findings presented in this brief are part of a larger multimethod evaluation.
RESULTS: More patients in the intervention group than in the comparison group achieved blood pressure control at 3 months (66.3% vs 42.4%) and 6 months (69.1% vs 56.5%). The intervention group experienced more days with blood pressure under control within a 3-month (18.6 vs 9.5 days) and 6-month period (57.0 vs 37.4 days) than the comparison group did.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the effectiveness of the Michigan Medicine Hypertension Pharmacists' Program approach to implementing the Pharmacists' Patient Care Process to improve blood pressure control.
