Feasibility and Acceptability of an Overdose Prevention Intervention Delivered by Community Pharmacists for Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain.

There have been increases in prescriptions of high strength opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), but CNCP patients perceive themselves as being at low risk of opioid overdose and generally have limited overdose awareness. This study examined how an overdose prevention intervention (opioid safety education, naloxone training, and take-home naloxone (THN)) delivered by community pharmacists for patients prescribed high-strength opioids for CNCP would work in practice in Scotland. Twelve patients received the intervention. CNCP patients and Community Pharmacists were interviewed about their experiences of the intervention and perceptions of its acceptability and feasibility. CNCP patients did not initially perceive themselves as being at risk of overdose but, through the intervention, developed insight into opioid-related risk and the value of naloxone. Pharmacists also identified patients' low risk perceptions and low overdose awareness. While pharmacists had positive attitudes towards the intervention, they outlined challenges in delivering it under time and resource pressures and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overdose prevention interventions are required in the CNCP population as this group has elevated risk factors for overdose but are commonly overlooked. Customised overdose prevention interventions for CNCP patients attend to gaps in overdose awareness and risk perceptions in this population.

Does training in motivational interviewing for community pharmacists improve outcomes for methadone patients? A cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Feasibility of pharmacist delivered motivational interviewing (MI) to methadone patients has been demonstrated, but its efficacy is untested. This study aimed to determine whether pharmacists trained in MI techniques can improve methadone outcomes. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial by pharmacy, with community pharmacies across Scotland providing supervised methadone to >10 daily patients, aged >18 years, started on methadone <24 months. Pharmacies were randomised to intervention or control. Intervention pharmacists received MI training and a resource pack. Control pharmacists continued with normal practice. Primary outcome was illicit heroin use. Secondary outcomes were treatment retention, substance use, injecting behaviour, psychological/physical health, treatment satisfaction and patient feedback. Data were collected via structured interviews at baseline and 6 months. KEY FINDINGS: Seventy-six pharmacies recruited 542 patients (295 intervention, 247 control), mean age 32 years; 64% male; 91% unemployed; mean treatment length 9 months. No significant difference in outcomes between groups for illicit heroin use (32.4% cf. 31.4%), although within-groups use reduced (P < 0.001); treatment retention was higher in the intervention group but not significantly (88% cf. 81%; P = 0.34); no significant difference between groups in treatment satisfaction, although this improved significantly in intervention (P < 0.05). More intervention than control patients said pharmacists had 'spoken more,' which approached statistical significance (P = 0.06), and more intervention patients found this useful (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Limited intervention delivery may have reduced study power. The intervention did not significantly reduce heroin use, but there are indications of positive benefits from increased communication and treatment satisfaction.