Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Canadian Respiratory Journal
Volume 10 (2003), Issue 4, Pages 195-202
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2003/736042
Original Article

The BC Community Pharmacy Asthma Study: A Study of Clinical, Economic and Holistic Outcomes Influenced by an Asthma Care Protocol Provided by Specially Trained Community Pharmacists in British Columbia

William Mclean,1 Jane Gillis,2 and Ron Waller3

1Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research Unit, Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
2Integral Health Pharmacy Consulting Inc, Halifax, Nova Scotia (formerly Professional Services, Unipharm Ltd, Richmond, British Columbia), Canada
3Asthma Education, Lakeside Pharmacy, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada

Copyright © 2003 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Despite advances in recent years, asthma morbidity and mortality have been noted to be on the increase in the past decade. The present study examined the failures and recommendations of past studies and introduced a new milieu for asthma care - the community pharmacy. The study incorporated a care protocol with the important ingredients of asthma education on medications, triggers, self-monitoring and an asthma plan, with pharmacists taking responsibility for outcomes, assessment of a patient's readiness to change and tailoring education to that readiness, compliance monitoring and physician consultation to achieve asthma prescribing guidelines.

METHODS: Thirty-three pharmacists in British Columbia, specially trained and certified in asthma care, agreed to participate in a study in which experienced pharmacists would have asthma patients allocated to enhanced (pharmaceutical) care (EC) or usual care (UC). Pharmacists less experienced were clustered by geography and had their pharmacies randomized to two levels of care; each pharmacy then had patients randomized to EC versus control, UC versus control or EC versus UC depending on their pharmacy randomization. Six hundred thirty-one patients provided consent, of which 225 in EC or UC were analyzed for all outcomes. Patients were followed for one year.

RESULTS: Compared with patients in the UC group, the results of those in the EC group were as follows: symptom scores decreased by 50%; peak flow readings increased by 11%; days off work or school were reduced by approximately 0.6 days/month; use of inhaled beta-agonists was reduced by 50%; overall quality of life improved by 19%, and the specific domains of activity limitations, symptoms and emotional function also improved; initial knowledge scores doubled; emergency room visits decreased by 75%; and medical visits decreased by 75%. A patient satisfaction survey revealed that the population was extremely pleased with their pharmacy services. Cost analysis reinforces the EC model, which is more cost effective than UC in terms of most direct and indirect costs in asthma patients.

CONCLUSION: Specially trained community pharmacists in Canada, using a pharmaceutical care-based protocol, can produce impressive improvements in clinical, economic and humanistic outcome measures in asthma patients. The health care system needs to produce incentives for such care.