An observational survey assessing the extent of PrEP and PEP furnishing in San Francisco Bay Area pharmacies

BackgroundHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV) remains prevalent in the United States despite medications that reduce the risk of infection, primarily pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). In 2019, California authorized pharmacists to furnish PrEP and PEP under Senate Bill 159 (SB-159).ObjectiveAssess implementation of SB159 in San Francisco Bay Area community and mail-order pharmacies.MethodsWe conducted an observational, cross-sectional survey of independent community and mail-order pharmacies in the 9-county San Francisco Bay Area to identify those that were in the process of furnishing, actively furnished, or furnished under a collaborative practice agreement (CPA). We conducted interviews with furnishing pharmacies in April 2021, focusing on the barriers to and successes of implementation, as well as the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and qualitatively analyzed them.ResultsOf the 209 pharmacies contacted, 6 furnished under SB-159 (2.9%), 2 were in the process of furnishing under SB-159, and 1 furnished under a CPA. Six pharmacies and 7 pharmacists were interviewed. Barriers to implementation and furnishing included COVID-19, laboratory tests, lack of time and staff, cost to pharmacy, refill limitation, lack of patient awareness, difficulty arranging follow-up care, and vague wording of the policy. Facilitators to implementation included collaborations with clinics and health centers, privacy, increased accessibility, increased need in the patient population, and the pharmacy culture.ConclusionBarriers and facilitators to PrEP and PEP furnishing were consistent across pharmacies, suggesting strategies that could be replicated and potential improvements to SB-159.     

Support and perceived barriers to implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis screening and dispensing in pharmacies: Examining concordance between pharmacy technicians and pharmacists

ObjectivesRecent legislation to expand pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) screening and dispensing in pharmacies may significantly improve PrEP access for people at a high risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission. Studies have shown that pharmacists show wide support for PrEP expansion in pharmacies. However, pharmacy technicians are often the first point of contact for patients in pharmacies and are required to implement many of the tasks to ensure patients of a pharmacy receive adequate services. The purpose of this study was to assess pharmacists’ and pharmacy technicians’ perspectives regarding the implementation of PrEP screening and dispensing.MethodsWe qualitatively examined whether pharmacy technicians’ (n = 6) support and perceived barriers to screening and dispensing PrEP in pharmacies were concordant with those of pharmacists (n = 7). Pharmacy staff were recruited from high-risk HIV neighborhoods in Atlanta, GA using AIDSVu (Atlanta, GA). Two independent coders used MAXQDA (Berlin, Germany) and performed thematic data analysis and unitization to determine agreement.ResultsPharmacists and pharmacy technicians expressed strong willingness and support for screening and dispensing PrEP in pharmacies. Both groups expressed concerns about the time and the resources needed to perform PrEP screening and dispensing. Technicians, however, also reported concerns about privacy for patients, the need for community support and awareness of pharmacy-based PrEP screening, and recommended scheduling of PrEP screening activities during a limited part of the day to facilitate screening. Pharmacists reported fewer barriers but reported a need for more training of pharmacy staff to assist with PrEP screening and dispensing implementation.ConclusionPharmacy technicians discussed more barriers compared with pharmacists who were largely centered around practical considerations (i.e., logistics and workflow) that may affect the success of PrEP screening and dispensing. Given technicians’ pivotal role in the pharmacy, implementation of pharmacy-based PrEP services should address technicians’ perceived barriers in addition to those of pharmacists.     

Community pharmacy delivered PrEP to STOP HIV transmission: An opportunity NOT to miss!

In the United States, 1.1 million persons are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and approximately 37,800 new infections occur annually. Ending the HIV epidemic requires reducing HIV transmissions by 90% within the next 10 years and requires expanded HIV testing, antivirals for persons infected with HIV, and scale-up of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) to prevent new infections. Community pharmacies are widely accessible and employ highly trained health care professionals on-site who can initiate PrEP and PEP. Recommendations are offered to implement a community pharmacy PrEP program. Pharmacy, government, and HIV prevention leaders must be prepared to support and promote transformative changes, including (1) modification or expansion of existing state-specific scope of practice to initiate PrEP and PEP, (2) encouraging pharmacist education about PrEP and PEP, (3) identification and screening of candidates for PrEP eligibility, (4) incorporating pharmacy laboratory ordering and monitoring logistics, (5) adjusting workflow and ensuring confidential spaces for sensitive discussions, and (6) addressing reimbursement to maintain pharmacist-delivered PrEP and PEP programs. HIV disproportionately affects minority communities and younger individuals who may not be engaged in the health care system. Community pharmacies are accessible and can help increase PrEP use. Expansion of community pharmacy PrEP programs are needed to help end the HIV epidemic. Implementation of PrEP requires adaptation of the pharmacy profession to support incorporation of PrEP in a community pharmacy. Endorsement and support of community pharmacists are needed to implement PrEP to increase HIV prevention efforts and expand pharmacists’ scope of practice.     

Patient perspectives of pharmacists prescribing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: A survey of patients receiving antiretroviral therapy

BackgroundGroundbreaking new laws granting community pharmacists the authority to prescribe human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medications have the potential to substantially expand PrEP access in high-risk communities. However, whether patients will be accepting of pharmacists as PrEP providers is underexplored within the literature.ObjectivesTo assess patient perspectives of pharmacist PrEP prescribing and identify potential barriers to acceptance of pharmacist-prescribed PrEP.MethodsAdult patients currently receiving antiretroviral therapy for HIV prophylaxis or treatment at a specialty pharmacy were surveyed telephonically from January 2020-April 2020. A 4-point Likert scale was used to measure perceptions in addition to open-ended questions.ResultsThe participation rate was 87.5%. Of the 49 included patients, 100% agreed/strongly agreed that pharmacists were knowledgeable about medications, but they were less likely to strongly agree that pharmacists were knowledgeable about HIV drugs (14.3% vs. 75.5% for other drugs, P < 0.001). Most (93.9%) of the patients agreed/strongly agreed that they would feel comfortable seeking a pharmacist for PrEP information or HIV testing. With respect to PrEP prescribing, 16.3% disagreed that they would feel comfortable having a pharmacist prescribe their first fill of PrEP, preferring to speak to their physician or expressing concerns that pharmacists have inadequate training. All patients expressed a desire for additional HIV/PrEP training requirements for pharmacists before allowing them to prescribe PrEP. A portion of the respondents (18.4%) expressed concerns that the increased availability of PrEP would lead to persons becoming lax about barrier protection. However, 100% of the patients agreed/strongly agreed that having pharmacist-prescribed PrEP would benefit their community.ConclusionPatients receiving antiretroviral therapy reported overall favorable perceptions of pharmacist PrEP prescribing; however, some concerns relating to pharmacists’ level of training in HIV exist. This may be ameliorated through increased pharmacist education, including how to counsel patients seeking PrEP on behavioral risk reduction.     

Patient perception of community pharmacists prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention

ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to determine patients’ perceptions of pharmacists prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention.DesignAn anonymous, 26-item, cross-sectional survey was administered to individuals and data collection occurred during a 12-week period from January to March 2019.Setting and participantsIndividuals were recruited to complete the survey in person at 5 locations of a large grocery-chain pharmacy in Washington, D.C. and Maryland. Inclusion criteria included individuals who were at least 18 years old and able to read and write English. Exclusion criteria included persons living with HIV or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.Outcome measuresIn order to measure perception, participants were asked on the survey to select their level of agreement using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Researchers analyzed overall perception in addition to differences in perception based on various demographic characteristics.ResultsIn total, 117 surveys were collected and analyzed. Most participants were comfortable with pharmacists prescribing PrEP. Notable statistically significant findings included participants who interacted with pharmacists through medication therapy review (4.4, 3.1 [P < 0.05]) and vaccinations (4.3, 3.1 [P < 0.05]) were more likely to agree with pharmacists prescribing PrEP than participants who had no previous interactions with pharmacists. Participants who had previously used PrEP were more likely to agree with pharmacists prescribing PrEP than those who had not used PrEP before.ConclusionThis study provided a glimpse into patients’ perceptions of pharmacists prescribing PrEP. Patients were generally favorable of pharmacists prescribing PrEP; however, there are still barriers to overcome before prescribing PrEP for HIV prevention can feasibly occur in the community setting.     

Pharmacy-based pre-exposure prophylaxis support among pharmacists and men who have sex with men

ObjectiveTo understand the perceptions and support for pharmacy-based pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) delivery among pharmacists and men who have sex with men (MSM).DesignA qualitative study from April 2017 to December 2018.Setting and participantsThe researchers used purposive sampling to identify MSM participants and AIDSVu to identify pharmacists in high–human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) zip codes in the metropolitan Atlanta area. Eight MSM and 6 pharmacists consented to participate in the study.Outcome measuresPerceptions and support for PrEP delivery in pharmacies.ResultsBoth MSM and pharmacists expressed strong support for in-pharmacy PrEP screening and dissemination. MSM reported that pharmacies were more convenient and accessible compared with physician’s offices. However, they also noted that privacy and training of pharmacy staff were important for them to consider being screened for PrEP in a pharmacy. Pharmacists also believed training was important and felt comfortable counseling on HIV prevention for their current patients.ConclusionThese data support early evidence that pharmacies are a promising venue to improve PrEP access for MSM. To implement PrEP screening in pharmacies, proper training of pharmacy staff and a designated space to ensure privacy are critical. Future studies should test the feasibility of screening for PrEP in pharmacies for black MSM.     

Assessing the use of an infographic on pre-exposure prophylaxis for Wisconsin community pharmacists

BackgroundPre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) treatments reduce the risk of contracting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). However, despite proven effectiveness, PrEP use remains low among populations at risk of contracting HIV. Successful PrEP uptake includes developing partnerships with health care providers to implement PrEP-related tools and interventions. Pharmacists are uniquely positioned health professionals who can provide PrEP services in the community, such as pharmacy-led PrEP clinics, to increase uptake, adherence, and retention. Unfortunately, prior evidence shows that not all pharmacists have enough knowledge about PrEP to provide effective care, resulting in low confidence and discomfort in PrEP-related patient consultations.ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess Wisconsin community pharmacists’ intentions of utilizing an infographic on PrEP for HIV prevention to educate themselves on PrEP and in consultations with patients starting PrEP.MethodsAn adaptative survey, using the Theory of Planned Behavior, was conducted to assess pharmacists’ intentions by measuring their attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The Fisher exact tests were performed to examine associations between the 3 theoretical constructs against intentions.ResultsPharmacists reported high intentions of utilizing the infographic to educate themselves (62%) and counsel patients starting PrEP (54%). Their attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls were all significantly associated with their intentions. However, their intentions were reported lower than their attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, suggesting that additional factors may influence intentions that were not measured in this study.ConclusionThe results from this study demonstrate Wisconsin community pharmacists’ intentions of using an infographic on PrEP for HIV prevention in practice while measuring their attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Future research is warranted to explore adapting and using the infographic to better understand its influence in improving pharmacy care among HIV-negative individuals.     

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.     

Planning for health information exchange: Perspectives of community pharmacists in the Community Pharmacy Enhanced Services Network of Indiana

BackgroundCommunity pharmacists are one of the most accessible health professionals and provide many different services. However, lack of access to complete patient information is a barrier to making meaningful patient interventions.ObjectivesTo determine (1) current and desired health information access among community pharmacists in the Community Pharmacy Enhanced Services Network (CPESN) of Indiana and (2) design considerations for a health information exchange tool for use by community pharmacists.MethodsThis voluntary study was conducted over an 8-day survey period in which 40 pharmacies within the CPESN Indiana network were contacted during regular business hours and asked to take part in a 15-minute telephone survey. Questions asked were informed by the following Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research intervention characteristics domain constructs: relative advantage, evidence strength and quality, adaptability, trialability, complexity, costs, and design quality and packaging.ResultsOf the 40 contacted pharmacies, 32 (80%) completed the survey. Most pharmacies reported access to immunization registry data; no other routine access was reported by any pharmacy. In questions assessing the relative advantage of Health Information Exchange (HIE) access compared with their current information access, at least 84.4% said that they agreed or strongly agreed with all statements. When choosing the data element most desirable to have access to via HIE in a community pharmacy, the most frequently selected choices were updated medication orders (n = 18, 56.3%), progress notes (n = 5, 15.6%), and laboratory tests (n = 4, 12.5%). Suggestions to improve ease of implementation included integration within dispensing software and clinical decision-making support features, such as alerts for pertinent lab values.ConclusionIntegrating HIE data into community pharmacies would provide community pharmacists with access to important patient data, and pharmacists believed that this would improve their practice. Future research should explore whether implementation of this type of tool leads to better patient outcomes and improved pharmacist job satisfaction.     

Informing a collaborative-care model for delivering medication assisted treatment for opioid dependence (MATOD): An analysis of pharmacist,prescriber and patient perceptions

BackgroundDemand for medication assisted treatment for opioid dependence (MATOD) in Australia exceeds capacity, particularly in rural and regional areas. There is increasing recognition that community pharmacists are well-positioned to take on expanded roles in MATOD delivery, however there has been limited Australian research exploring attitudes of pharmacists, prescribers, and patients to collaborative models of care.Objective(s)This study aimed to better understand enablers and barriers to a collaborative model for MATOD, to inform implementation in regions where increases in treatment capacity are urgently needed.MethodsSemi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with pharmacists (n = 11), prescribers (n = 6), and patients (n = 8) recruited from the Frankston-Mornington Peninsula region in Victoria, Australia, where transport and access to services have impacts on health care utilisation. The COM-B model was used to explore perceptions of pharmacists’ capability, opportunity, and motivations for delivering collaborative care.ResultsThere was strong motivation among healthcare professionals to participate in a collaborative model of care, with the main perceived benefits including improvements in accessibility, convenience, and continuity of care, and leverage of pharmacists’ high level of patient engagement. Key barriers identified by both pharmacists and prescribers included a perceived lack of pharmacist skills in some areas (capability) and resources (opportunity) to deliver collaborative care in a community pharmacy setting. Established relationships between all stakeholders (social opportunity) and communication between pharmacists and prescribers were identified as facilitators. Barriers and facilitators aligned with seven key areas: skills, confidence, relationships, patient selection, protocols, communication and resources.ConclusionsFindings informed the development of a collaborative model that was individualised, protocol based, and supported by training and clear processes.Project impactThis study identifies specific barriers and facilitators to a pharmacist-prescriber collaborative model of care for MATOD. The resulting model will be tested in a hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial in the Frankston-Mornington Peninsula region.     

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.     

The provision of care provided by the pharmacy workforce in relation to complementary medicines in Australia

BackgroundThe use of complementary medicines (CMs) is prevalent across the world. Some CMs, such as St John's Wort, when taken with specific pharmaceutical medicines, may cause drug-herb interactions. In this context, pharmacists have the opportunity to play an important role in preventing harm to patients.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore real-life pharmacy practice in relation to CMs in New South Wales, Australia.MethodsThe study design involved ‘pseudo-patient’ pharmacy visits while posing as a patient's relative requesting St John's Wort and using a standardized set of questions to document details of the interaction with a range of pharmacy staff.ResultsOf the 110 metropolitan pharmacy visits made, the pharmacy workforce who were involved in assisting the pseudo-patient's request included 51 pharmacists (46.4%), 57 pharmacy assistants (51.8%) and 1 naturopath (0.9%). Advice that may have resulted in harm to the patient, was offered by pharmacists in 11.8% (n = 13) of the encounters, and 20.9% (n = 23) by pharmacy assistants. Conversely, advice that prevented harm was provided by only 17.3% (n = 19) pharmacists and 10.9% (n = 12) pharmacy assistants. History-taking was not attempted by 84 pharmacy staff.ConclusionThe majority of pharmacy staff involved in this study did not manage a request for a CM with known drug-herb interactions in a way that would prevent harm. These findings highlight the need for the pharmacy workforce to engage in education and training in CMs, with a focus on how to consult evidence-based resources regarding interactions in the interest of patient safety.