A prospective,multisite implementation-efficacy trial of a collaborative prescriber-pharmacist model of care for Medication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Dependence: Protocol for the EPIC-MATOD study

BackgroundMedication Assisted Treatment for Opioid Dependence (MATOD) is clinically effective and cost effective, yet a lack of MATOD prescribers in the community limits access to this treatment in Australia. These shortages are often greatest in regional and rural areas.Objective(s)The Enhancing Pharmacist Involvement in Care (EPIC)-MATOD study will evaluate clinical and implementation outcomes among people with opioid dependence receiving MATOD through a collaborative pharmacist-prescriber model of care across multiple sites in a regional location (encompassing a mix of metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas) of Victoria, Australia.Methods and analysisThe EPIC-MATOD study is a prospective, multisite, implementation trial of collaborative MATOD care. Pharmacists and prescribers will be recruited through the local network of opioid pharmacotherapy providers. Patients will be recruited through participating healthcare providers. After induction into the collaborative care model, patients and healthcare professionals will be followed up over 6- (patients) and 12-months (pharmacists and prescribers) in a hybrid implementation-efficacy study, with outcomes mapped to the RE-AIM framework. The primary clinical efficacy endpoint is patient retention in treatment at 26 weeks. The primary implementation outcome is treatment capacity, based on prescriber time required to provide treatment through collaborative care compared with traditional care. Secondary clinical endpoints include attendance for dosing and clinical reviews, substance use, mental and physical health and overall well-being. Implementation costs, acceptability, and provider engagement in collaborative care will be used as secondary implementation outcome indicators. Time and costs associated with collaborative care, and health service utilisation, will also be estimated.Project impactThe study will provide important information on outcomes and acceptability of collaborative care for MATOD, as well as the cost and key considerations in delivering a collaborative model of care in Australia and other countries where similar treatment barriers exist.     

Strategies for implementing the Appointment-Based Model at a rural independent chain of community pharmacies

BackgroundThe Appointment-Based Model (ABM) is a care model that helps community pharmacists streamline their medication dispensing workflow while simultaneously integrating patient care into the medication preparation process through medication synchronization. Implementation of the ABM has varied across community pharmacies. Further studies that identify tailored implementation approaches are needed to support broad adoption of the ABM in practice.Objectives(1) To determine facilitators and barriers to ongoing adoption and implementation of the ABM at a small chain of rural independent pharmacies where adoption has stalled and (2) to identify implementation strategies to support further adoption of the ABM at these pharmaciesMethodsThis project was an exploratory, mid-implementation study. Semistructured interviews were conducted with pharmacy staff who participated in the ongoing implementation and use of the ABM at the pharmacies. Interviews elicited stakeholder-centered perspectives on (1) experiences with the ABM to date, (2) processes and roles for the ABM, and (3) opinions on how implementation of the ABM could be improved at the pharmacies. Rapid qualitative assessment methodology was used for analysis to identify facilitators and barriers and to select implementation strategies.ResultsThirty-one pharmacy personnel were interviewed: pharmacists (n = 10), pharmacy technicians (n = 7), and fill clerks (n = 14). The research team identified 6 facilitators and 4 barriers to the implementation of the ABM at the pharmacies. Five implementation strategies were selected based on the facilitators and barriers: (1) capture and share local knowledge across pharmacy sites, (2) conduct educational outreach visits, (3) conduct ongoing training, (4) prepare patients to be active participants in the ABM, and (5) organize clinician implementation team meetings.ConclusionsDevelopment of a stakeholder-driven implementation approach may support further implementation and adoption of the ABM in practice.     

Expanding pharmacists’ roles: Pharmacists’ perspectives on barriers and facilitators to collaborative practice

ObjectiveThe pharmacy profession is shifting from transactional dispensing of medication to a more comprehensive, patient-centered model of care. Collaborative practice agreements (CPAs) extend the role of a pharmacist to initiate, monitor, modify, and discontinue drug therapies and provide other clinical services. Although collaborative practice has been shown to improve health system efficiency and patient outcomes, little is known about how pharmacists perceive CPAs. To explore pharmacists’ perspectives of CPAs, including barriers and facilitators to CPA implementation.MethodsSemistructured key informant interviews were used to elicit information from licensed pharmacists practicing in a variety of settings in Arizona. Thematic analysis was used to identify key qualitative themes.ResultsSeventeen interviews of pharmacists with (n = 11, 64.7%) and without (n = 6, 35.3%) CPAs were conducted in April-May 2019. The pharmacists saw their role in CPAs as supportive, filling a care gap for overburdened providers. A heightened sense of job satisfaction was reported owing to increased pharmacist autonomy, application of advanced knowledge and clinical skills, and ability to have a positive impact on patients’ health. Challenges to the implementation of CPAs included liability and billing issues, logistic concerns, some experiences with provider hesitancy, and lack of information and resources to establish and maintain a CPA. The barriers could be overcome with conscious team-building efforts to establish trust and prove the worth of pharmacists in health care teams; strategic engagement of stakeholders in the development of CPAs, including billing and legal departments; and mentorship in the CPA creation process.ConclusionsThe pharmacists in this study enjoyed practicing collaboratively and had overall positive perceptions of CPAs. As health worker shortages become more dire and pharmacy practice evolves to expand the role of pharmacists in providing direct patient care, CPAs will be an important tool for restructuring care tasks within health systems.     

Collaborative prescribing: A qualitative exploration of a role for pharmacists in mental health

BackgroundCollaborative prescribing has been proposed as an extension of practice for advanced pharmacist practitioners. A lack of research investigating how pharmacists might be most effective as prescribers in mental health was identified.ObjectiveTo explore health professionals’ and consumers’ attitudes and beliefs that relate to the role of specialist mental health pharmacists working as collaborative prescribers within their advanced scope of practice in secondary care.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with key informants in the New Zealand mental health sector. Participants were selected via a purposive sampling method, including health professionals (n = 9) and consumers (n = 3). NVivo software was used to analyze data, using a thematic analysis approach to develop a series of key themes from the interviews. Common themes were extracted, which were used to gather results and draw conclusions.ResultsThe key findings include a widespread acknowledgment of the role of specialist pharmacists as collaborative prescribers in mental health and as integral members of the multidisciplinary team; however, consumers were unaware of pharmacists’ role in secondary care. The role was seen to extend current practice particularly in medication management after assessment and diagnosis by a medical practitioner. Concerns regarding demonstrating competence, practitioner role/boundary confusion, insufficient training and workforce development, hesitancy by pharmacists to extend role, consumer awareness, and public perception of the traditional pharmacist role were identified. Solutions discussed included education by the profession; relationship building, training, and robust competency assessments; and a structured framework for implementing a collaborative prescribing model.ConclusionsThis study suggests there was recognition and acceptance of the role that specialist pharmacist practitioners could play in contributing to the care of mental health consumers as collaborative prescribers; their medication expertise being regarded highly. Further research is necessary to investigate how current resource constraints will allow for collaborative prescribing to be implemented within the context of mental health practice.     

Factors influencing the implementation of pharmaceutical care in outpatient settings: A systematic review applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

BackgroundPharmaceutical care in outpatient settings is a type of health service that has been shown to contribute to decreasing drug-related morbidity and mortality rates. However, every process of implementing a new service brings about changes and transformations in the work routine, thus posing challenges.ObjectivesThis systematic review aims to identify barriers to and facilitators for the implementation of pharmaceutical care in outpatient settings by applying the CFIR method, a framework based on the theory of health services, used to analyze and synthesize research data, which can direct strategies for the service to work as planned.MethodsA systematic review was conducted exploring the barriers to and facilitators for the implementation of pharmaceutical care in outpatient settings. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, COCHRANE, and LILACS databases were consulted.ResultsEight studies were included: five qualitative ones, two mixed-method ones, and a quantitative one. The most frequent CFIR constructs identified were Patient Needs and Resources (n = 30, 10.75%), Knowledge and Beliefs about the Intervention (n = 31, 11.11%), Networks and Communications (n = 34, 12.19%), and Available Resources (n = 56, 20.07%). The most cited barriers were: insufficient human resources, patients' unawareness of the existence of the pharmaceutical care service, and pharmacists’ resistance to changes. Facilitators included: the opportune presentation of the service to the healthcare team; the use of electronic devices for specific guidance; and the assessment of patient satisfaction.ConclusionsThis systematic review allowed detecting key guidelines to improve the implementation process, including (1) defining an implementation method and exploring it extensively during the pre-implementation phase, (2) ensuring human and financial resources, (3) determining how the new service will interact with other existing services. More research is needed to understand how these factors can affect the implementation of clinical services.     

Factors influencing pharmacists’ clinical decision making in pharmacy practice

BackgroundPharmacists’ clinical decision-making is considered a core process of pharmaceutical care in pharmacy practice, but little is known about the factors influencing this process.ObjectiveTo identify factors influencing clinical decision-making among pharmacists working in pharmacy practice.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacists working in primary, secondary, and tertiary care settings in the Netherlands between August and December 2021. A thematic analysis was conducted using an inductive approach. The emerged themes were categorized into the Capability–Opportunity-Motivation–Behaviour (COM-B) model domains.ResultsIn total, 16 pharmacists working in primary care (n = 7), secondary care (n = 4) or tertiary care (n = 5) were interviewed. Factors influencing pharmacists' capability to make clinical decisions are a broad theoretical knowledge base, clinical experience, and skills, including contextualizing data, clinical reasoning, and clinical judgment. The pharmacy setting, data availability, rules and regulations, intra- and interprofessional collaboration, education, patient perspectives, and time are mentioned as factors influencing their opportunity. Factors influencing pharmacists’ motivation are confidence, curiosity, critical thinking, and responsibility.ConclusionsThe reported factors covered all domains of the COM-B model, implying that clinical decision-making is influenced by a combination of pharmacists' capability, opportunity, and motivation. Addressing these different factors in pharmacy practice and education may improve pharmacists’ clinical decision-making, thereby improving patient outcomes.     

Community pharmacy-based injectable naltrexone service delivery models and best practices

BackgroundOpioid use disorder (OUD) is a major public health issue in the United States. Medications for OUD (MOUD), which combines the use of approved medications with counseling and behavioral therapies, represents an evidence-based approach to treat individuals living with an OUD. However, MOUD has not kept up with increased demand and new treatment approaches are needed. One approach is injectable naltrexone, an approved and effective MOUD treatment, provided by pharmacists, who are more geographically accessible and have legal authority to administer it in some states.ObjectivesTo explore how different community pharmacists provide injectable naltrexone treatment and identify best practices.MethodsAn exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was used to investigate pharmacy-based naltrexone injection practices, involving a pharmacist questionnaire and interviews with pharmacists, prescribers, and community stakeholders. An inductive/iterative content analysis approach, guided by an initial straw model, was used to identify and explore conceptual categories for the interviews.ResultsThe final sample included 68 pharmacy surveys and 14 total interviews with pharmacists (n = 9), prescribers (n = 3), and community stakeholders (n = 2). Pharmacies providing naltrexone injections reported administering over 700 injections in the past year. Interviews revealed benefits and barriers to pharmacist-provided injections and the importance of the prescriber-pharmacist relationship in OUD treatment. Three pharmacy treatment delivery models were identified, compared to the initial straw model, and informed development of a best practices checklist for community pharmacies interested in establishing or expanding a naltrexone injection service.ConclusionsThe study demonstrates how community pharmacies developed and implemented a naltrexone injection service. Pharmacists' and prescribers' feedback clearly suggests an untapped interest, as well as resources, in realizing pharmacists’ roles as providers of injectable naltrexone treatment. Implementation research could inform the development and evaluation of an intervention based on these best practices to further explore the utility of community pharmacy-based naltrexone injection services.     

Pharmacists' experiences and views on providing screening services: An international comparison

BackgroundThe PHARMASCREEN study, adapted from the Australian Cardiovascular Absolute Risk Screening study (CARS), tested the first community pharmacist-delivered screening model for diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the UAE. Both PHARMASCREEN and CARS screening models successfully identified at-risk individuals despite differences in healthcare systems, infrastructure, and scope of practice. Comparing pharmacists’ experiences of screening delivery in different health systems will help to understand key contextual factors that affect future implementation.ObjectiveTo explore and compare the views and experiences of pharmacists participating in the UAE PHARMACSCREEN trial, with those of community pharmacists who participated in the Australian CARS trial.MethodsIn-depth, face-to-face interviews were conducted with pharmacists who delivered the screening programs in Australia (n = 10) and UAE (n = 12) to explore their views and experiences. The interview guide was similar in both studies to ensure consistency and comparability of collected data. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed.ResultsTwo common themes emerged: pharmacists’ experiences with the screening program, and barriers and facilitators to service delivery. Both groups held very positive views about the screening intervention, particularly referencing the professional satisfaction it generated and broad participant satisfaction with pharmacy-based screening. Despite country and health system differences, pharmacists reported many similar barriers (e.g., staffing levels, pharmacy coordination) and enablers (e.g., implementation support, adequate staffing, point–of-care tests, no cost to patient) to implementation. The context for screening delivery emerged as a key theme for UAE interviews only, where issues such as local population needs, regulatory factors, pharmacist roles and expectations, and training needs were quite prominent.ConclusionsPharmacists’ positive experiences with the screening programs is a testimony to the strong emerging evidence supporting pharmacists-delivered screening. Despite differences in health care systems, similar enablers and barriers were identified. The adaptation and successful implementation of international screening models requires a country-specific adaptation process.     

Patient assessment and documentation integrated in community practice: Chat,check, and chart

ObjectiveTo explore how pharmacists integrated the Chat,Check andChart (CCC) tools in community practice and to identify barriers and facilitators to use.DesignConcurrent nested mixed-method study. Open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews on tools use and a quantitative survey were completed via telephone.SettingCommunity-based pharmacy practice.Participants39 community pharmacists consented to interviews2 months after the CCC training workshop; 22 completed an interview.InterventionWorkshop training on CCC tools and workplace implementation strategies.Main outcome measuresBarriers, facilitators and implementation strategies for CCC tools.ResultsMore pharmacists were implementing or had made patient assessment part of their practice (54%) than documentation of patient care (36%). Integration was facilitated by patient success, collaborative worksite, personal beliefs, and provincial regulations. Lack of routines, patient expectations, reimbursement, and time were familiar barriers. Strategies to overcome these barriers included practicing new habits, using technology, starting small, using physical reminders, and recognizing benefits.ConclusionPatient care tools for assessment and documentation had both positive and negativeeffects on patients, pharmacists, and community pharmacies because of demands on time, lack of resources, and limited personal, external, and patient expectations of pharmacists’ care. Findings resulted in Alberta College of Pharmacists academic detailing of the CCC tools duringonsite pharmacy assessments to help pharmacists meet or exceed provincial practice standards.     

Innovative learning in pharmacy practice: The perceived benefits of and barriers to a layered learning practice model

ObjectiveTo assess pharmacy preceptors’ perceptions of the benefits of and barriers to a layered learning practice model (LLPM) at their practice site.MethodsAn online survey was created using Qualtrics and sent to experiential directors at all colleges [or schools] of pharmacy in Ohio and at Big Ten universities. The experiential directors were asked to send the survey to all preceptors affiliated with their program. The survey assessed the perceived or actual benefits of and barriers to a layered learning model. Benefits and barriers to patient care, student or resident learning, and the practice site were assessed.ResultsIn total, 304 surveys were initiated by precepting pharmacists. Survey respondents reported precepting introductory pharmacy practice experience students (n = 113, 37.1%), advanced pharmacy practice experience students (n = 184, 60.5%), and residents (n = 176, 57.9%) throughout a given year. Survey respondents’ most commonly identified benefits of a LLPM included an increase in patient access to pharmacy team members (n = 97, 42.3%), an increase in the number of precepting opportunities for learners (n = 80, 34.9%), and improvement in patient education (n = 76, 33.2%). The top identified barriers to a LLPM included performing precepting duties that may interfere with preceptor job responsibilities (n = 158, 72.1%), having inadequate workspace for learners (n = 120, 54.8%), and being unable to effectively teach or oversee multiple learners simultaneously (n = 77, 35.1%).ConclusionsThis research provides insight into pharmacy preceptor perception of how a LLPM impacts practice sites, patient care, and training of pharmacy learners. This information may be valuable in the design of preceptor development for colleges of pharmacy and residency programs.     

Medication-related problems encountered in the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly: An observational study

ObjectiveTo evaluate pharmacist-encountered medication-related problems (MRPs) among the participants of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE).DesignThis was a retrospective analysis of proprietary pharmacy records detailing pharmacist encounters with PACE clinical staff.Setting and participantsA national provider of pharmacy services to more than 75 PACE organizations. In total, 1057 PACE participants at 69 PACE sites across the United States with documented pharmacist encounters between March and May 2018.Outcome measuresMRPs were classified using the Hepler-Strand taxonomy, and pharmacists’ recommendations made to prescribers to resolve these MRPs were classified using a modified Hoth taxonomy. In addition, pharmacists’ communication methods and prescribers’ responses were analyzed.ResultsOverall, 2004 MRPs were encountered. The most frequent MRPs identified were related to medication safety concerns, including drug interactions (720, 35.9%), adverse drug reactions (ADRs, 356, 17.8%), high doses (270, 13.5%), and unindicated drugs (252, 12.6%). Drug interactions frequently involved competitive inhibition, 3 or more drugs, opioids, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and antidepressants. Deprescribe medication (561, 24.8%), start alternative therapy (553, 24.4%), change doses (457, 20.2%), and monitor (243, 10.7%) were the top 4 types of recommendations made by pharmacists. Among 1730 responses obtained from PACE prescribers, 78.1% (n = 1351) of pharmacists’ recommendations were accepted. Compared with electronic communication, telephonic communication was associated with more acceptance and less prescriber nonresponse (χ² = 78.5, P < 0.001).ConclusionPharmacists identified a substantial number of MRPs in PACE, especially those related to medication safety such as drug interactions and ADRs. In this practice setting, significant collaboration occured between pharmacists and PACE prescribers, as evidenced by the rate of prescribers’ acceptance of pharmacists’ recommendations. Further research is needed to fully evaluate the economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes associated with pharmacists’ encounters in PACE.     

Pharmacists’ experiences with a statewide naloxone standing order program in Massachusetts: a mixed methods study

ObjectivesIn a prior statewide naloxone purchase trial conducted in Massachusetts, we documented a high rate of naloxone dispensing under the state’s standing order program. The purpose of this study was to understand the factors that facilitate naloxone access under the Massachusetts naloxone standing order (NSO) program and identify any remaining barriers amenable to intervention.DesignMixed methods design involving a pharmacist survey and 3 pharmacist focus groups.Setting and participantsFocus groups were conducted at 3 separate professional conferences for pharmacists (n = 27). The survey was conducted among Massachusetts pharmacists (n = 339) working at a stratified random sample chain and independent retail pharmacies across Massachusetts. All data were collected between September 2018 and November 2019.Outcome measuresFacilitators and barriers to NSO implementation and naloxone dispensing and pharmacists’ attitudes and beliefs regarding naloxone and opioid use.ResultsMost pharmacists described NSO implementation as being straightforward, although differences were reported by pharmacy type in both the survey and focus groups. Facilitators included centralized implementation at chain pharmacies, access to Web-based resources, regularly stocking naloxone, and use of naloxone-specific intake forms. Barriers included patient confidentiality concerns and payment/cost issues. Only 31% of surveyed pharmacists reported always providing naloxone counseling; the most commonly cited barriers were perceived patient discomfort (21%) and time limitations (14%). Confidential space was also more of a concern for independent (vs. chain) pharmacists (18% vs. 6%, P = 0.008). A majority of pharmacists held supportive attitudes toward naloxone, although some reported having moral/ethical concerns about naloxone provision.ConclusionWe documented several facilitators to NSO implementation and naloxone dispensing. Areas for improvement include addressing stigma and misconceptions around opioids and naloxone use. These remain important targets for improving pharmacy-based naloxone dispensing, although our overall positive results suggest Massachusetts’ experience with NSO implementation can inform other states’ efforts to expand pharmacy-based naloxone access.     

Primary care provider perceptions of an integrated community pharmacy hypertension management program

BackgroundTrained community pharmacists provided hypertension (HTN) management services in collaboration with a patient-centered medical home (PCMH).ObjectiveTo explore primary care provider (PCP) perceptions of a HTN management program in which patients at the PCMH with elevated blood pressure could choose to receive follow-up care with a trained community pharmacist at a chain community pharmacy.MethodsWe conducted informal interviews with 8 PCPs with a range of level of involvement with the collaborative HTN management program to inform the development of a 13-question online survey that was distributed to PCPs at 10 participating Michigan Medicine PCMH clinics. The primary outcome was the percent of PCPs who reported that the program improved their patient’s blood pressure. Secondary outcomes included awareness of the program, alternative follow-up strategies, PCP satisfaction, and barriers to using the program.ResultsA total of 39 PCPs (30.0%) responded to the survey. More than one-half (n = 21 of 39, 53.9%) of respondents reported that at least 1 of their patients had seen a trained community pharmacist for HTN management services. Almost all of these PCPs (n = 19 of 21, 90.5%) reported being satisfied with the program, and 80.9% (n = 17 of 21) agreed that it helped patients improve their blood pressure control. The most common barriers identified were patients preferring to follow up directly with their PCP (n = 18 of 39, 46.2%), PCPs being more comfortable with patients having a visit with an embedded ambulatory care pharmacist (n = 16 of 39, 41.0%), and a lack of written materials to share with patients about the program (n = 15 of 39, 38.5%).ConclusionPCPs who used the integrated community pharmacy HTN management program were satisfied with the program and thought that it resulted in improved blood pressure control. PCPs may benefit from written information to share with their patients as well as education to increase their awareness of the program and its beneficial effect on patient blood pressure.