J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2019 Jul-Aug;59(4):570-574. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2019.02.013. Epub 2019 Apr 9.
To determine the economic feasibility of implementing community pharmacy-based tech-check-tech compared with other common community pharmacy practice models.
A decision tree analysis compared 4 community pharmacy practice models: (1) historical (pharmacist or technician fills prescriptions and pharmacist gives immunizations); (2) historical with tech-check-tech (technician or certified technician fills prescriptions and pharmacist gives vaccinations); (3) modern (historical model plus medication therapy management [MTM] services); and (4) modern with tech-check-tech (modern model but a technician or certified technician handles all fills). A series of summed Markov models with a 1-year time horizon compared strategies on gross profit with the use of cycles of 1 hour of work attributed to either filling prescriptions, giving vaccinations, or conducting MTM.
Based on current MTM volume, the splitting of pharmacist time across all services (modern model) was the most profitable strategy, resulting in approximately $1700 more than the next most profitable approach (historical model). Models incorporating tech-check-tech need significant time to be filled by MTM services, vaccinations, or other billable services to make up for the investment made into pharmacists' time. For these models, the likelihood of conducting a comprehensive medication review (CMR) in a given hour needs to exceed 47% for allocating all pharmacist time to nonfilling functions to be more profitable. Performing targeted medication reviews alone (without the chance of a CMR) was not sufficient to make tech-check-tech a profitable strategy. At the current inputs, billable services of exceeding approximately $18 and $20 per hour are needed for tech-check-tech to be the most profitable model with and without MTM services, respectively.
Tech-check-tech implementation in the community setting has the potential to be profitable if pharmacist time is adequately scheduled with other billable services. Future research in this area should increase the number of pharmacies included and expand analyses to encompass chain-based community pharmacies.
确定基于社区药房的技术检查技术(tech-check-tech)与其他常见社区药房实践模式相比的经济可行性。
决策树分析比较了 4 种社区药房实践模式:(1)历史模式(药剂师或技术员填写处方,药剂师接种疫苗);(2)历史模式加技术检查技术(技术员或认证技术员填写处方,药剂师接种疫苗);(3)现代模式(历史模式加药物治疗管理 [MTM] 服务);和(4)现代模式加技术检查技术(现代模式,但所有填写工作由技术员或认证技术员负责)。一个 1 年时间跨度的系列求和 Markov 模型,比较了将 1 小时的工作分配给开处方、接种疫苗或进行 MTM 的策略的总利润。
基于当前 MTM 量,将药剂师时间分配到所有服务(现代模式)是最盈利的策略,比下一个最盈利的方法(历史模式)多出约 1700 美元。纳入技术检查技术的模型需要大量时间通过 MTM 服务、接种疫苗或其他计费服务来弥补对药剂师时间的投资。对于这些模型,要使分配给非填充功能的所有药剂师时间更有利可图,每小时进行全面药物审查(CMR)的可能性需要超过 47%。仅进行有针对性的药物审查(没有 CMR 的机会)不足以使技术检查技术成为有利可图的策略。在当前投入下,技术检查技术需要每小时计费服务超过约 18 美元和 20 美元才有盈利,分别是有和没有 MTM 服务的情况下。
如果合理安排药剂师时间与其他计费服务,社区环境中实施技术检查技术具有盈利潜力。该领域的未来研究应增加纳入的药店数量,并扩展分析以涵盖连锁社区药店。