RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The primary aim was to compare the successful completion rates of pre-treatment medication history consults conducted by pharmacists with patients either via an unscheduled telephone consult (current standard care) or a scheduled videoconference consult model. Secondary aims were to examine pharmacist perceptions of the telephone and videoconference consults and explore patient (+/- support person) perceptions of videoconference consults. METHOD: Completion data were collected and compared for the two modalities. In addition, pharmacists commented on any positive/negative factors impacting all consults. For the final 35 participants completing a videoconference consult, patients, support people, and pharmacists involved, completed a survey exploring perceptions and satisfaction. RESULTS: A significantly higher completion rate (p < 0.0001) was found for the videoconferencing model, with 94% (76 of 81) completed successfully compared to 72% (76 of 105) of the unscheduled telephone consults. Pharmacists reported multiple factors impacting the success of the telephone consults including scheduling issues and patient factors. Survey responses revealed that 100% of patients/support people and 82% of pharmacists reported satisfaction with videoconference consults. Surveyed participants noted some technical issues, however, the 'ability to show/view medication containers and/or labels' and 'convenience of scheduled time' were benefits of the videoconference model. DISCUSSION: Results indicate that pre-treatment medication history consults should be offered via videoconference to maximise success.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias , Farmacéuticos , Humanos , Comunicación por Videoconferencia , Teléfono , AnamnesisRESUMEN
Introduction: This study examined the reimbursement opportunity and the time efficiency of a standard care model of unscheduled telephone consults compared to scheduled videoconference consults for obtaining pre-treatment medication histories for patients with cancer. Methods: Data related to (a) the available and the claimed activity-based funding for both models and (b) the number of contacts and the duration of each contact to complete the patient's medication history via either unscheduled telephone or scheduled videoconference consults were collected and compared. Results: Data was collected for 86 telephone and 56 videoconference consults. The actual activity-based funding claimed for telephone consults was $0, even though $86 of activity-based funding was available for each consult. This represented a $0 reimbursement for the staff time spent conducting the telephone consults, and a missed opportunity to claim $86 per consult. Activity-based funding was claimed for all but one videoconference consult with an average of $205 received per consult, when $221 per consult was available. Videoconference consults were an average of 2.3â min shorter than telephone consults. Discussion: When compared to unscheduled telephone consults, the scheduled videoconference consults represented increased reimbursement and equivalent time efficiency for the cancer pharmacist completing pre-treatment medication histories.