A descriptive survey of specialty pharmacy team members' perceptions of interactions with field representatives from...

BACKGROUND: It is not well understood in literature what the time spent between health care professionals, including pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, and pharmaceutical field specialists equates to in terms of changes in productivity or lost time, the educational value provided, or the nature of the resources provided in terms of improving patient care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the volume of, and time spent in, pharmaceutical field representative (PFR) meetings by members of an integrated specialty pharmacy team at a large academic medical center. METHODS: A 16-item survey tool used skip and branching logic comprising binary, multiple-choice, multiple-select, and open-ended items was distributed to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians at a health-system specialty pharmacy on the south side of Chicago, Illinois. The survey assessed locations of interactions with PFR, who initiated the request, reason for interaction, time spent, whether the participant felt the interaction provided value, and whether it contributed to them working a longer shift or compromising time spent on patient care that day. RESULTS: There were a total of 108 responses. Of those, 44 responses documented having an interaction with a PFR, and the remaining responses indicated no interaction that week. Only 5 (11.4%) of the interactions were pharmacy team member initiated. Among the pharmacy team member-initiated meetings, all respondents stated that the interaction had provided value, and none reported that it led to a longer workday. Conversely, of the 36 pharmaceutical representative-initiated interactions, 15 (41.6%) found value and 5 (13.8%) said that their workday was elongated because of these interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that the majority of encounters taking place between our specialty pharmacy team members and PFRs did not result in knowledge gained or provision of tools and resources to support our patients. The next steps include 3 specific proposed changes to how our team responds to meeting requests from PFRs, specifically aimed at reducing pipeline presentations, reducing meetings pertaining to limited distribution drugs not accessible to the specialty pharmacy, and reducing meetings with the intent of introduction or pass off of contacts between PFRs.