BACKGROUND: In a previous statewide naloxone purchase trial conducted in Massachusetts, we documented high levels of naloxone accessibility, upon patient request, under the state's naloxone standing order (NSO) program. Equally important for reducing overdose mortality rates is expanding naloxone access via codispensing alongside opioid prescription and syringe purchases at pharmacies. OBJECTIVE: To understand naloxone codispensing from the perspective of pharmacists under the Massachusetts NSO program. METHODS: The study used a mixed methods design involving 3 focus groups and a quantitative survey. Participants in both the focus groups (N = 27) and survey (N = 339) were licensed Massachusetts pharmacists. Focus groups were conducted at 3 separate professional conferences for pharmacists. The survey was conducted using a stratified random sample of 400 chain and independent retail pharmacies across Massachusetts. All data were collected between September 2018 and November 2019. Quantitative and qualitative analyses examined current policies, practices, and attitudes regarding naloxone codispensing for patients at risk of opioid overdose. RESULTS: Most pharmacists (69%) reported that they, their pharmacy, or both promoted codispensing alongside opioid prescriptions. A majority promoting naloxone codispensing did so for patients prescribed high opioid dosages (80%); fewer promoted codispensing for patients also prescribed benzodiazepines (20%). Facilitators to codispensing were pre-existing relationships between pharmacists and prescribers, mandatory pharmacist consultation, and universal naloxone promotion to all patients meeting certain criteria. Barriers to codispensing were pharmacists' concerns about offending patients by initiating a conversation about naloxone, insufficient technician training, workflow and resource constraints, and misconceptions surrounding naloxone. We found no substantive differences in outcomes between chain and independent pharmacies. CONCLUSION: We documented several facilitators and barriers to naloxone codispensing in Massachusetts pharmacies. Areas amenable to intervention include increased training for front-line pharmacy technicians, mandatory pharmacist consultation for opioid-prescribed patients, workflow reorganization, and addressing stigma concerns on the pharmacist end.
BACKGROUND: In a previous statewide naloxone purchase trial conducted in Massachusetts, we documented high levels of naloxone accessibility, upon patient request, under the state's naloxone standing order (NSO) program. Equally important for reducing overdose mortality rates is expanding naloxone access via codispensing alongside opioid prescription and syringe purchases at pharmacies. OBJECTIVE: To understand naloxone codispensing from the perspective of pharmacists under the Massachusetts NSO program. METHODS: The study used a mixed methods design involving 3 focus groups and a quantitative survey. Participants in both the focus groups (N = 27) and survey (N = 339) were licensed Massachusetts pharmacists. Focus groups were conducted at 3 separate professional conferences for pharmacists. The survey was conducted using a stratified random sample of 400 chain and independent retail pharmacies across Massachusetts. All data were collected between September 2018 and November 2019. Quantitative and qualitative analyses examined current policies, practices, and attitudes regarding naloxone codispensing for patients at risk of opioid overdose. RESULTS: Most pharmacists (69%) reported that they, their pharmacy, or both promoted codispensing alongside opioid prescriptions. A majority promoting naloxone codispensing did so for patients prescribed high opioid dosages (80%); fewer promoted codispensing for patients also prescribed benzodiazepines (20%). Facilitators to codispensing were pre-existing relationships between pharmacists and prescribers, mandatory pharmacist consultation, and universal naloxone promotion to all patients meeting certain criteria. Barriers to codispensing were pharmacists' concerns about offending patients by initiating a conversation about naloxone, insufficient technician training, workflow and resource constraints, and misconceptions surrounding naloxone. We found no substantive differences in outcomes between chain and independent pharmacies. CONCLUSION: We documented several facilitators and barriers to naloxone codispensing in Massachusetts pharmacies. Areas amenable to intervention include increased training for front-line pharmacy technicians, mandatory pharmacist consultation for opioid-prescribed patients, workflow reorganization, and addressing stigma concerns on the pharmacist end.
Authors: Tony Antoniou; Cheryl Pritlove; Dana Shearer; Diana Martins; Mina Tadrous; Charlotte Munro; Tara Gomes Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2021-02-07
Authors: Jonathan E Freise; Elizabeth E McCarthy; Michelle Guy; Scott Steiger; Leslie Sheu Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ingrid A Binswanger; Stephen Koester; Shane R Mueller; Edward M Gardner; Kristin Goddard; Jason M Glanz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 5.128