Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA · 2021
Community pharmacists in Virginia dispensing naloxone under a standing order: A qualitative study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ijioma Stephen C, Fernández Elena V, Gatewood Sharon B, Carroll Norman V, Salgado Teresa M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Virginia Health Commissioner signed a standing order into law allowing licensed pharmacists to dispense opioid receptor antagonists (ORAs) for overdose reversal.
OBJECTIVES: Using the theory of planned behavior as an initial guide to study development, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore community pharmacists' attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention toward dispensing ORAs under a standing order in Virginia.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with community pharmacists across the Commonwealth between June 2018 and October 2019. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed.
RESULTS: Twenty-one community pharmacists were interviewed. Pharmacists were confused about the specifics and the processes involved with dispensing naloxone under the standing order. Furthermore, many recognized the underuse of the standing order. Positive attitudes focused on the life-saving action of ORAs. Negative attitudes included encouraging risky behaviors by patients, negatively affecting the patient-pharmacist relationship, offending or contributing to stigmatizing patrons, and having liability issues to the pharmacy. Subjective norms regarding dispensing of ORAs under the standing order were perceived to be favorable among peer pharmacists and primary care and emergency department physicians but may be seen as profit-seeking by patients. Barriers to service provision included lack of guidance from corporate offices (in chain pharmacies), inadequate training, patient out-of-pocket costs, reimbursement issues, inadequate staffing and time, and stigma. Facilitators comprised the existence of practice site-specific protocols, the REVIVE! training, technician support, increased community awareness, physician collaboration, pharmacist training, and employer guidance. Whereas some pharmacists intended to become more familiarized with the standing order, others did not intend to actively identify patients who were at risk of an opioid overdose.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacists expressed mixed behavioral intention toward dispensing ORAs under the standing order. Future research should focus on quantifying the uptake of the standing order at the state level.
OBJECTIVES: Using the theory of planned behavior as an initial guide to study development, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore community pharmacists' attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention toward dispensing ORAs under a standing order in Virginia.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with community pharmacists across the Commonwealth between June 2018 and October 2019. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed.
RESULTS: Twenty-one community pharmacists were interviewed. Pharmacists were confused about the specifics and the processes involved with dispensing naloxone under the standing order. Furthermore, many recognized the underuse of the standing order. Positive attitudes focused on the life-saving action of ORAs. Negative attitudes included encouraging risky behaviors by patients, negatively affecting the patient-pharmacist relationship, offending or contributing to stigmatizing patrons, and having liability issues to the pharmacy. Subjective norms regarding dispensing of ORAs under the standing order were perceived to be favorable among peer pharmacists and primary care and emergency department physicians but may be seen as profit-seeking by patients. Barriers to service provision included lack of guidance from corporate offices (in chain pharmacies), inadequate training, patient out-of-pocket costs, reimbursement issues, inadequate staffing and time, and stigma. Facilitators comprised the existence of practice site-specific protocols, the REVIVE! training, technician support, increased community awareness, physician collaboration, pharmacist training, and employer guidance. Whereas some pharmacists intended to become more familiarized with the standing order, others did not intend to actively identify patients who were at risk of an opioid overdose.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacists expressed mixed behavioral intention toward dispensing ORAs under the standing order. Future research should focus on quantifying the uptake of the standing order at the state level.