ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Fatal overdoses from opioids increased four-fold from 1999 to 2009, and they are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 50. Legislation has been passed by every state to increase access to naloxone but dispensing by community pharmacies remains low. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to pilot test a proactive opioid overdose counseling intervention and a passive naloxone intervention, and the implementation strategies developed to support their delivery, in rural community pharmacies on relevant implementation outcomes. METHODS: The interventions, implementation strategies, and the overall pilot study approach were developed in a collaborative partnership with a regional supermarket pharmacy chain. They selected 2 rural pharmacies to participate in the pilot study and 2 non-intervention pharmacies to serve as comparison sites. Two interventions were pilot tested in the 2 intervention pharmacies: 1)a proactive opioid overdose counseling intervention and 2) a passive naloxone intervention. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was utilized to evaluate adoption, feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness outcomes after the 3-month observation period. RESULTS: Between the 2 intervention pharmacies, 130 patients received the opioid overdose counseling intervention. 44 (33.8%) were prescribed and dispensed naloxone. Zero naloxone prescriptions were written or dispensed at the comparison pharmacies. Interviews with pharmacy staff found the interventions to be feasible, acceptable, and appropriate in their settings. CONCLUSION: This small scale pilot study in partnership with a regional supermarket pharmacy chain had positive results with a third of patients who received the opioid overdose counseling intervention being dispensed naloxone. However, the majority of patients did not receive naloxone indicating additional revisions to the intervention components and/or implementation strategies are needed to improve the overall impact of the interventions.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Effective communication between prescribers of opioids and community pharmacists can contribute to maximizing appropriate pain management and reducing opioid misuse and diversion. While much of the education and training available on reducing opioid misuse and diversion stresses the importance of interprofessional communication between prescribers and pharmacists, few studies have been explored those communication patterns directly. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this manuscript are to present and explore key emergent themes from a qualitative study around the nature, frequency, and content of communication between primary care physicians (PCPs) and pharmacists focusing on opioids. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 48â¯PCPs and 60 community pharmacists across four states in the U.S.: Washington, Idaho, Kentucky and Arkansas. RESULTS: Convergent results from both samples indicated that the content of communication usually centers on questions of dosing, timing of the prescription, and/or evidence of potential misuse/diversion. When communication was focused on relaying information about a patient and/or clarifying questions around the prescription, it appeared positive for both parties. Results also indicated that close physical proximity between PCPs and dispensing pharmacists contributed to more positive and useful communication, especially when the clinics and pharmacies were part of the same healthcare system. Many pharmacists reported hesitancy in "questioning" a physician's judgement, which appeared related to commonly held beliefs of both pharmacists and physicians about the respective roles of each in providing patient care. Pharmacists reported difficulty in reaching PCPs for discussion, while PCPs reported it was easy to reach pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: Physician and pharmacist communication around opioids can be mutually beneficial. When prescribers and pharmacists are co-located, higher levels of trust and teamwork are reported, which in turn seems to be related to more open and positive communication. Additional research is needed to identify interventions to increase mutually-valued communication that improves the quality of decision-making around opioids.
