How pharmacists respond to on-line, real-time DUR alerts.

Edward P Armstrong, C. R. Denemark

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the type and frequency of drug utilization review (DUR) alerts sent by one claims processor to pharmacists; identify how pharmacists respond to these on-line, real-time DUR messages; and quantify the interventions taken by these pharmacists as a result of these alerts. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims from July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. SETTING: State of Delaware. PARTICIPANTS: 55,000 Medicaid recipients served by 170 participating pharmacies and 2,000 physicians. INTERVENTIONS: All on-line DUR alerts sent to pharmacists and the pharmacists' responses were categorized by alert type and analyzed by drug class. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pharmacists' response (dispensed prescription, contacted prescriber, talked with patient, consulted own reference sources) and drug classes. RESULTS: During the study period, 807,017 claims generated 83,260 DUR alerts involving 73,554 (9.1%) prescriptions. Prescriptions were not dispensed in 20.9% of cases because of the DUR message. Prescriptions were dispensed 17.7% of the time after the pharmacist contacted the prescriber, in 20.6% of cases after the pharmacist talked with the patient, and 37.2% of the time after reviewing internal resources. Action taken by pharmacists varied among and within DUR criteria categories. Specific examples of alerts generated in high-frequency and high-profile areas are reviewed, some of which generated inconsistent responses. CONCLUSION: Among Delaware Medicaid providers, drug alerts resulted in pharmacists not dispensing prescriptions in a surprising percentage of situations. Pharmacists' responses varied according to the drug class involved and the type of alert received.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)149-154
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (Washington,D.C. : 1996)
Volume38
Issue number2
StatePublished - Mar 1998

Fingerprint

Drug Utilization Review
Pharmacists
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Prescriptions
Medicaid
Insurance Claim Review
Pharmacies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmaceutical Science

Cite this

How pharmacists respond to on-line, real-time DUR alerts. / Armstrong, Edward P; Denemark, C. R.

In: Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (Washington,D.C. : 1996), Vol. 38, No. 2, 03.1998, p. 149-154.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4c7aa4107bce4e1a9e7b1f3f7025d97f,
title = "How pharmacists respond to on-line, real-time DUR alerts.",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To quantify the type and frequency of drug utilization review (DUR) alerts sent by one claims processor to pharmacists; identify how pharmacists respond to these on-line, real-time DUR messages; and quantify the interventions taken by these pharmacists as a result of these alerts. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims from July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. SETTING: State of Delaware. PARTICIPANTS: 55,000 Medicaid recipients served by 170 participating pharmacies and 2,000 physicians. INTERVENTIONS: All on-line DUR alerts sent to pharmacists and the pharmacists' responses were categorized by alert type and analyzed by drug class. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pharmacists' response (dispensed prescription, contacted prescriber, talked with patient, consulted own reference sources) and drug classes. RESULTS: During the study period, 807,017 claims generated 83,260 DUR alerts involving 73,554 (9.1{\%}) prescriptions. Prescriptions were not dispensed in 20.9{\%} of cases because of the DUR message. Prescriptions were dispensed 17.7{\%} of the time after the pharmacist contacted the prescriber, in 20.6{\%} of cases after the pharmacist talked with the patient, and 37.2{\%} of the time after reviewing internal resources. Action taken by pharmacists varied among and within DUR criteria categories. Specific examples of alerts generated in high-frequency and high-profile areas are reviewed, some of which generated inconsistent responses. CONCLUSION: Among Delaware Medicaid providers, drug alerts resulted in pharmacists not dispensing prescriptions in a surprising percentage of situations. Pharmacists' responses varied according to the drug class involved and the type of alert received.",
author = "Armstrong, {Edward P} and Denemark, {C. R.}",
year = "1998",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "149--154",
journal = "Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA",
issn = "1544-3191",
publisher = "American Pharmacists Association",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How pharmacists respond to on-line, real-time DUR alerts.

AU - Armstrong, Edward P

AU - Denemark, C. R.

PY - 1998/3

Y1 - 1998/3

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To quantify the type and frequency of drug utilization review (DUR) alerts sent by one claims processor to pharmacists; identify how pharmacists respond to these on-line, real-time DUR messages; and quantify the interventions taken by these pharmacists as a result of these alerts. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims from July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. SETTING: State of Delaware. PARTICIPANTS: 55,000 Medicaid recipients served by 170 participating pharmacies and 2,000 physicians. INTERVENTIONS: All on-line DUR alerts sent to pharmacists and the pharmacists' responses were categorized by alert type and analyzed by drug class. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pharmacists' response (dispensed prescription, contacted prescriber, talked with patient, consulted own reference sources) and drug classes. RESULTS: During the study period, 807,017 claims generated 83,260 DUR alerts involving 73,554 (9.1%) prescriptions. Prescriptions were not dispensed in 20.9% of cases because of the DUR message. Prescriptions were dispensed 17.7% of the time after the pharmacist contacted the prescriber, in 20.6% of cases after the pharmacist talked with the patient, and 37.2% of the time after reviewing internal resources. Action taken by pharmacists varied among and within DUR criteria categories. Specific examples of alerts generated in high-frequency and high-profile areas are reviewed, some of which generated inconsistent responses. CONCLUSION: Among Delaware Medicaid providers, drug alerts resulted in pharmacists not dispensing prescriptions in a surprising percentage of situations. Pharmacists' responses varied according to the drug class involved and the type of alert received.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To quantify the type and frequency of drug utilization review (DUR) alerts sent by one claims processor to pharmacists; identify how pharmacists respond to these on-line, real-time DUR messages; and quantify the interventions taken by these pharmacists as a result of these alerts. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims from July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. SETTING: State of Delaware. PARTICIPANTS: 55,000 Medicaid recipients served by 170 participating pharmacies and 2,000 physicians. INTERVENTIONS: All on-line DUR alerts sent to pharmacists and the pharmacists' responses were categorized by alert type and analyzed by drug class. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pharmacists' response (dispensed prescription, contacted prescriber, talked with patient, consulted own reference sources) and drug classes. RESULTS: During the study period, 807,017 claims generated 83,260 DUR alerts involving 73,554 (9.1%) prescriptions. Prescriptions were not dispensed in 20.9% of cases because of the DUR message. Prescriptions were dispensed 17.7% of the time after the pharmacist contacted the prescriber, in 20.6% of cases after the pharmacist talked with the patient, and 37.2% of the time after reviewing internal resources. Action taken by pharmacists varied among and within DUR criteria categories. Specific examples of alerts generated in high-frequency and high-profile areas are reviewed, some of which generated inconsistent responses. CONCLUSION: Among Delaware Medicaid providers, drug alerts resulted in pharmacists not dispensing prescriptions in a surprising percentage of situations. Pharmacists' responses varied according to the drug class involved and the type of alert received.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032011668&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032011668&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9654846

AN - SCOPUS:0032011668

VL - 38

SP - 149

EP - 154

JO - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA

JF - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA

SN - 1544-3191

IS - 2

ER -