Cited by 41Pharmacy and Medical PracticesDiabetes Management and EducationPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Impact of physician-pharmacist collaboration on diabetes outcomes and health care use.

Open access
Norton, Melissa C., Haftman, Meghan E., Buzzard, Lyndsey N.·2020·The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the impact of physician–pharmacist collaboration for disease-state management on diabetes outcomes in primary care by comparing outcomes between physician-managed care and pharmacist collaborative care. Methods: A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted at Ascension Medical Group Via Christi, P.A. from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018. Health outcomes were analyzed in 385 patients with diabetes mellitus collaboratively managed by a physician and pharmacist (collaborative care group). Similar patients managed by physician only (usual care group) were matched to the collaborative care group using nearest neighbor matching. The primary outcome compared glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change between collaborative care and usual care groups at 12 months. Results: The mean change in HbA1c decreased by 1.75% in the collaborative care group and 0.16% in the usual care group (P < .0001). The usual care group had a larger number of patients with HbA1c less than 8% at follow-up (P = .0049). Additional outcomes included decrease in total cholesterol (P = .0023), triglycerides (P = .0016), and an increase in PPSV23 pneumococcal vaccinations (P = .0255) in the collaborative care group. The usual care group had an increase in PCV13 pneumococcal vaccinations (P = .0075). Both emergency department visits (P = .0162) and hospitalizations (P = .0225) decreased significantly in the collaborative care group, estimating total savings of $633,015. Conclusions: The collaboration of pharmacists and physicians in the primary care setting is associated with improved diabetes outcomes and substantially reduces costs related to decreased health care use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3122/jabfm.2020.05.200044

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The present study's results aligned with previous studies that found short-term (<12 months) improvement in HbA1c with clinical pharmacists providing medication management services in similar settings.

    “Our results aligned with those of previous studies52,53 that found short-term (<12 months) improvement in HbA1c with clinical pharmacists providing medication management services in similar settings.”

    From Mobile Health Intervention in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2023) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Results report a significantly larger HbA1c reduction with pharmacist collaborative care than with usual care, and the Discussion describes the pharmacists’ medication management in a primary care setting. However, the paper describes its primary HbA1c comparison as occurring at 12 months, not at less than 12 months, so the cited study does not establish the claim’s specific short-term timeframe. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cox N, Tak CR, Cochella SE, et al. Impact of pharma- cist previsit input to provider on chronic opioid pre- scribing safety. J Am Board Fam Med 2018;31:105-12.
  2. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medi- cal care in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2019;42:S61- S70.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Norton, M. C., Haftman, M. E., & Buzzard, L. N.
Affiliations
Ascension Via Christi (US)
Venue
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Published
2020-09
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
745-753
ISSN
  • 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7118
OpenAlex
W3089001714
Cited by
41
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
physician-pharmacist collaboration, diabetes mellitus, collaborative care, pharmacist-managed care, HbA1c, glycemic control, primary care, health care utilization, hospitalization, emergency department visits, pneumococcal vaccination, cost reduction, disease state management
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Diabetes Mellitus, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Pharmacists, Physicians, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review