Search

The Illinois Naloxone Standing Order allows community pharmacists to dispense naloxone; however, this policy initiative may be underutilized. Our study aims to characterize naloxone dispensing barriers, overall and by pharmacy type, make recommendations that can inform future policies to improve naloxone access, and evaluate outreach initiative effectiveness from academic detailers' perspectives. We conducted a retrospective analysis of semistructured data collected as part of an educational outreach program targeting Illinois community pharmacists in 2021. Academic detailers conducted educational outreach visits across community pharmacy settings (i.e., primary pharmacy, grocery pharmacy, or independent pharmacy) to promote standing order use and discuss barriers pharmacists face when dispensing naloxone. Following each visit, detailers recorded visit characteristics, pharmacist-identified obstacles impacting naloxone dispensing, and visit effectiveness. Detailers performed in-person visits at 270 (78%) of 348 targeted sites. A lower proportion of independent pharmacies (61%) routinely stock naloxone than primary (95%, P < 0.001) or grocery (98%, P < 0.001) pharmacies. Among pharmacists at independent pharmacies, 43% indicated they were highly or extremely comfortable dispensing naloxone, a significantly lower proportion than pharmacists at grocery (79%, P < 0.001) or primary (68%, P < 0.001) pharmacies. The prevalence of salient barriers to naloxone dispensing was: cost/insurance issues (primary pharmacy = 38% vs. grocery pharmacy = 36% vs. independent pharmacy = 28%, P = 0.46), stigma (36% vs. 49% vs. 16%, P < 0.05), and lack of standing order enrollment (0% vs. 0% vs. 49%, P < 0.05). On average, detailers perceived visits as less useful to pharmacists working at independent pharmacies than those at primary or grocery pharmacies. Over 80% of pharmacists reported facing greater than one naloxone dispensing barrier. While cost/insurance issues appear ubiquitous, patient stigma-related factors were prevalent in primary and grocery pharmacies. Although many pharmacists are comfortable dispensing naloxone under the standing order, pharmacists at independent pharmacies are less comfortable, potentially secondary to lower standing order enrollment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Academic detailing (AD) is a tailored, interactive educational outreach intervention that may improve patient outcomes. Insight into the design of AD interventions and the extent to which they are effective can help inform future AD-based programmes. The objective of this scoping review was to characterize opioid-focused AD interventions and describe their findings., Methods: A scoping review focused on AD interventions for opioids was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases through July 1, 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if written in English, included interactive opioid-focused educational interventions, and were conducted either in person, virtually or via telephone. Four independent reviewers reviewed titles and abstracts. Data extraction from full-text publications was completed using a standardized form., Results: Of 6086 articles initially identified, 22 articles met the inclusion criteria and 20 unique interventions were identified. The AD intervention was either delivered one-on-one ( n =16) or in a small, interactive group setting ( n =4). AD interventions varied in design. Effectiveness was evaluated in terms of opioid and naloxone prescribing rates, provider knowledge gaps, provider adherence to guidelines, and intervention feasibility. Sixteen (80%) interventions resulted in statistically significant improvement in one or more outcomes., Conclusion: Generally, opioid-related AD was effective and programmes were primarily conducted one-on-one between pharmacists and primary care providers for 16-30 minutes. A variety of metrics and outcomes were used to assess the success/effectiveness of AD interventions, which is an important consideration in future studies as no single metric captures the effectiveness of an educational outreach-based intervention for pain management., Competing Interests: Disclosure and potential conflicts of interest: Kent Hanson is supported by the University of Illinois, Chicago/Pfizer Inc. Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) Fellowship (2020–2022). Monika Mandava is supported by the University of Illinois, Chicago/AbbVie Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) Fellowship (2021–2023). The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Potential Conflicts of Interests form for the authors is available for download at: https://www.drugsincontext.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/dic.2021-7-7-COI.pdf, (Copyright © 2021 Kulbokas V, Hanson KA, Smart MH, Mandava MR, Lee TA, Pickard AS.)