J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2020 Sep-Oct;60(5):663-668. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2020.02.016. Epub 2020 May 22.
The Advanced Practice Pharmacist (APh) licensure has provided an opportunity for pharmacists to expand their scope of practice in California; however, there have not been any studies in California assessing the interventions made by APhs as credentialed providers of care.
To assess the clinical interventions made by APhs as credentialed providers with clinical privileges in an independent community pharmacy.
This was a retrospective, observational study that assessed clinical interventions made by APhs on patients referred for disease state management between January 2018 and December 2018. Pharmacist interventions were stratified into 3 levels of provider care: full privilege (FP), limited privilege (LP), and no privilege.
FP had the highest percentage of accepted recommendations (62.2% ± 20.1%), whereas LP and no privilege had lower percentages of accepted recommendations (41.9% ± 12.0% and 31.6% ± 3.7%, respectively) (P < 0.01).
APhs as credentialed providers with FP, or even LP, made more successful clinical interventions than those without any privileges.
在加利福尼亚州，高级执业药师（APh）的执照为药师扩大其执业范围提供了机会；然而，加利福尼亚州尚未有任何研究评估 APh 作为有临床资格的护理提供者所进行的干预措施。
评估具有临床特权的 APh 作为独立社区药房中认证提供者进行的临床干预措施。
这是一项回顾性、观察性研究，评估了 2018 年 1 月至 2018 年 12 月期间因疾病管理而转介的患者的 APh 进行的临床干预措施。药师干预措施分为 3 个级别的提供者护理：完全特权（FP）、有限特权（LP）和无特权。
FP 拥有最高百分比的被接受的建议（62.2% ± 20.1%），而 LP 和无特权的被接受建议的百分比较低（41.9% ± 12.0%和 31.6% ± 3.7%，分别）（P < 0.01）。
具有 FP 甚至 LP 等临床特权的 APh 作为认证提供者进行的临床干预措施比没有任何特权的提供者更成功。
