Impact analysis of virtual ambulatory transplant pharmacists during COVID‐19

Park, Lindsay; Kim, Ju Hee; Waldman, Georgina; Marks, Christin Rogers; Clark, Jacqueline E.

INTRODUCTION: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, transplant centers were challenged to meet the demand for new telemedicine strategies. The ability of lung transplant providers (LTP) to conduct face‐to‐face clinic visits for high‐risk immunocompromised patients, such as lung transplant recipients (LTR), was limited. Through the implementation of comprehensive medication management visits, pharmacists were able to assist LTP in the transition to telemedicine. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of telephone encounters from cardiothoracic (CT) transplant pharmacists at our center from March to September 2020 was completed. LTR scheduled for clinic visits with LTP were called prior to the visit by CT transplant pharmacists who conducted medication list reviews, adherence assessments, and medication access assistance. Clinical recommendations were communicated directly to the LTP and documented in patient electronic medical records. The primary outcome was the number of pharmacist‐driven clinical interventions. Secondary endpoints included the clinical severity and value of service of each intervention, percentage of accepted recommendations, patient cost savings interventions, prevention of adverse events, and avoidance of inappropriate doses. RESULTS: From March to September 2020, the CT transplant pharmacists conducted 385 virtual visits on 157 LTR with a median of 20 minutes spent per visit. There were 891 total interventions made by CT transplant pharmacists, including 778 medication discrepancies identified. Over 60% of encounters demonstrated some form of medication error and over 55% of encounters exhibited value of pharmacy services. CONCLUSION: Implementation of CT transplant pharmacist telehealth visits has potential for increased patient access to pharmacy care and improved accuracy of medication lists. When focusing on the severity of errors and value of services, most demonstrated a level of significance. Further investigation is needed to analyze the impact of this service on patient outcomes as well as cost‐effectiveness.