Search

Background: In a previous statewide naloxone purchase trial conducted in Massachusetts, we documented high levels of naloxone accessibility, upon patient request, under the state's naloxone standing order (NSO) program. Equally important for reducing overdose mortality rates is expanding naloxone access via codispensing alongside opioid prescription and syringe purchases at pharmacies.Objective: To understand naloxone codispensing from the perspective of pharmacists under the Massachusetts NSO program.Methods: The study used a mixed methods design involving 3 focus groups and a quantitative survey. Participants in both the focus groups (N = 27) and survey (N = 339) were licensed Massachusetts pharmacists. Focus groups were conducted at 3 separate professional conferences for pharmacists. The survey was conducted using a stratified random sample of 400 chain and independent retail pharmacies across Massachusetts. All data were collected between September 2018 and November 2019. Quantitative and qualitative analyses examined current policies, practices, and attitudes regarding naloxone codispensing for patients at risk of opioid overdose.Results: Most pharmacists (69%) reported that they, their pharmacy, or both promoted codispensing alongside opioid prescriptions. A majority promoting naloxone codispensing did so for patients prescribed high opioid dosages (80%); fewer promoted codispensing for patients also prescribed benzodiazepines (20%). Facilitators to codispensing were pre-existing relationships between pharmacists and prescribers, mandatory pharmacist consultation, and universal naloxone promotion to all patients meeting certain criteria. Barriers to codispensing were pharmacists' concerns about offending patients by initiating a conversation about naloxone, insufficient technician training, workflow and resource constraints, and misconceptions surrounding naloxone. We found no substantive differences in outcomes between chain and independent pharmacies.Conclusion: We documented several facilitators and barriers to naloxone codispensing in Massachusetts pharmacies. Areas amenable to intervention include increased training for front-line pharmacy technicians, mandatory pharmacist consultation for opioid-prescribed patients, workflow reorganization, and addressing stigma concerns on the pharmacist end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In 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.Design: Mixed methods design involving a pharmacist survey and 3 pharmacist focus groups.Setting and Participants: Focus 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 Measures: Facilitators and barriers to NSO implementation and naloxone dispensing and pharmacists' attitudes and beliefs regarding naloxone and opioid use.Results: Most 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.Conclusion: We 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]