Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What predicts pharmacists’ engagement with opioid-outcome screening? Secondary analysis from an implementation study in community pharmacy

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Pharmacists have a key role to play in identifying and responding to emerging clinical problems with prescribed opioids. A pilot study in Australia examined the implementation of screening and brief intervention (Routine Opioid Outcome Monitoring [ROOM]) to identify and respond to opioid-related problems in community pharmacies. In this implementation study, the rate of screening varied considerably between pharmacies. Objective The aim of this study was to examine pharmacist characteristics associated with implementation of ROOM. Setting Community pharmacies in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. Methods We implemented a validated computer-facilitated screening (ROOM), combined with brief intervention for opioid-related problems based on a widely accepted framework for monitoring outcomes. In this analysis, we examined the correlates of ROOM completion for individual pharmacists. Negative binomial regression was used to identify baseline predictors of greater screening, with the number of ROOM screens as the dependent (outcome) variable and pharmacist demographics, knowledge, confidence and comfort responding to prescription opioids problems, and attitudes towards evidence based practice examined as independent (predictor) variables. Main outcome measure Number of screens completed by an individual pharmacist as reported in follow-up surveys by pharmacist. Results Fewer years of practice was associated with a greater number of screenings conducted. On average, each additional decade of practice was associated with a 31% (95% CI 0%, 53%) reduction in the number of screenings undertaken by pharmacists. A multivariable analysis revealed that each additional decade practicing, lower knowledge of naloxone and lower confidence in identifying unmanaged pain were all independently associated with reduced engagement in screening after controlling for other variables. Conclusion Findings from this pilot study identified potential barriers to implementing opioid outcome monitoring. Further studies could test different groups of community pharmacists’ experience of different barriers when implementing monitoring outcomes with prescribed opioids, to inform future implementation and clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bohnert AB, Valenstein M, Bair MJ, et al. Association between opioid prescribing patterns and opioid overdose-related deaths. JAMA. 2011;305(13):1315–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fischer B, Jones W, Rehm J. High correlations between levels of consumption and mortality related to strong prescription opioid analgesics in British Columbia and Ontario, 2005–2009. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(4):438–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Roxburgh A, Bruno R, Larance B, Burns L. Prescription of opioid analgesics and related harms in Australia. Med J Aust. 2011;195(5):280–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Opioid harm in Australia and comparisons between Australia and Canada. Cat. no. HSE 210. Canberra: AIHW. 2018.

  5. Gourlay DL, Heit HA, Almahrezi A. Universal precautions in pain medicine: a rational approach to the treatment of chronic pain. Pain Med. 2005;6(2):107–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernández D, Benrimoj SI. Model for the evaluation of implementation programs and professional pharmacy services. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2016;12(3):515–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Weir NM, Newham R, Dunlop E, Bennie M. Factors influencing national implementation of innovations within community pharmacy: a systematic review applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Guirguis LM, Lee S, Sanghera R. Impact of an interactive workshop on community pharmacists' beliefs toward patient care. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(3):460–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hagemeier NE, Alamian A, Murawski MM, Pack RP. Factors associated with provision of addiction treatment information by community pharmacists. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015;52:67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nielsen S, Menon N, Larney S, Farrell M, Degenhardt L. Community pharmacist knowledge, attitudes and confidence regarding naloxone for overdose reversal. Addiction. 2016;111(12):2177–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Michie S, Stralen M, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Murphy AL, Phelan H, Haslam S, Martin-Misener R, Kutcher SP, Gardner DM. Community pharmacists' experiences in mental illness and addictions care: a qualitative study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2016;11:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nielsen S, Picco L, Kowalski M, Sanfilippo P, Wood P, Larney S, et al. Routine opioid outcome monitoring in community pharmacy: Outcomes from an open-label single-arm implementation-effectiveness pilot study. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nielsen S, Kowalski M, Wood P, Larney S, Bruno R, Shanahan M, et al. Routine opioid outcome monitoring in community pharmacy: pilot implementation study protocol. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2019;15(8):1047–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nielsen S, Picco L, Middleton M, M. K, Bruno R. Validation of the Routine Opioid Outcome Monitoring (ROOM) screening tool in patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. Lisbon Addictions Conference; Lisbon 2019.

  16. Krebs E, Lorenz K, Bair M, Damush T, Wu J, Sutherland J, et al. Development and Initial Validation of the PEG, a Three-item Scale Assessing Pain Intensity and Interference. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(6):733–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nielsen S, Picco L, Campbell G, Lintzeris N, Larance B, Farrell M, et al. Development of a brief patient-administered screening tool for prescription opioid dependence for primary care settings. Pain Med. 2020;21(2):e79–e88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41(11):1284–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith PC, Schmidt SM, Allensworth-Davies D, Saitz R. Primary Care Validation of a Single-Question Alcohol Screening Test. J Gen Int Med. 2009;24(7):783–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Aarons GA. Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Ment Health Serv Res. 2004;6(2):61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  22. O'Reilly CL, Bell JS, Kelly PJ, Chen TF. Exploring the relationship between mental health stigma, knowledge and provision of pharmacy services for consumers with schizophrenia. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2015;11(3):e101–e109109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Phokeo V, Sproule B, Raman-Wilms L. Community pharmacists' attitudes toward and professional interactions with users of psychiatric medication. Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55(12):1434–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lai Joyce Chun K, Olsen A, Taing MW, Clavarino A, Hollingworth S, Dwyer R, et al. How prepared are pharmacists to provide over-the-counter naloxone? The role of previous education and new training opportunities. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2019;15(8):1014–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Patel T, Chang F, Mohammed HT, Raman-Wilms L, Jurcic J, Khan A, et al. Knowledge, perceptions and attitudes toward chronic pain and its management: a cross-sectional survey of frontline pharmacists in Ontario, Canada. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6):e0157151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Herndon CM, Strassels SA, Strickland JM, Kral LA, Craig DS, Nesbit SA, et al. Consensus recommendations from the strategic planning summit for pain and palliative care pharmacy practice. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;43(5):925-44.e1–925-44.e10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stafford R, Thomas J, Payakachat N, Diemer T, Lang M, Kordsmeier B, et al. Using an array of implementation strategies to improve success rates of pharmacist-initiated medication therapy management services in community pharmacies. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2017;13(5):938–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Okoro O, Hillman L. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: exploring the potential for expanding the role of pharmacists in public health. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2018;58(4):412–20.e3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernández D, Benrimoj SI. Qualitative study on the implementation of professional pharmacy services in Australian community pharmacies using framework analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Abbasi K. Knowledge, lost in translation. J Roy Soc Med. 2011;104(12):487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The initial ROOM screening tool was developed with support from Central and Eastern Sydney Primary Health Network. We wish to acknowledge the pharmacists and pharmacy customers that contributed to the pilot implementation-effectiveness study, and members of the Adivsory Commitee for the study.

Funding

This work is supported by a Mindgardens Seedfunding Grant (UNSW) and a grant from WentWest. SN and SL are recipients of NHMRC Research Fellowships (#1163961, #1136944). We also acknowledge contributions from Victorian Pharmacotherapy Area Based Networks of Latrobe Community Health Service, Hume Area Pharmacotherapy Network—Primary Care Connect, Area Four Pharmacotherapy Network, Orticare Grampians Loddon Mallee Pharmacotherapy Network, Western Victoria PHN and Co-Health towards software development costs. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales is supported by funding from the Australian Government under the Substance Misuse Prevention and Service Improvements Grant Fund. The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the funding bodies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash Addiction Research Centre, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Suzanne Nielsen, Paul Sanfilippo & Louisa Picco

  2. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Suzanne Nielsen, Raimondo Bruno, Michala Kowalski & Sarah Larney

  3. Department of Pharmacy and Biomedical Science, Latrobe University, Bendigo, VIC, Australia

    Pene Wood

  4. Western Victoria Primary Health Network, Geelong, VIC, Australia

    Pene Wood

  5. School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

    Raimondo Bruno

  6. Department of Emergency Medicine and Family Medicine, Université de Montréal and Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de L’Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada

    Sarah Larney

Authors
  1. Suzanne Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Sanfilippo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Louisa Picco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raimondo Bruno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michala Kowalski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pene Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sarah Larney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne Nielsen.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

SN and SL are named investigators on untied educational grants from Indivior which are unrelated to this work. SN has received honoraria for providing training on identification and treatment of codeine dependence (Indivior). RB was a named investigator on an untied education grant from Mundipharma to conduct post-marketing surveillance on oxycodone. SN is a named investigator on research grants from Seqirus unrelated to this work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nielsen, S., Sanfilippo, P., Picco, L. et al. What predicts pharmacists’ engagement with opioid-outcome screening? Secondary analysis from an implementation study in community pharmacy. Int J Clin Pharm 43, 420–429 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01074-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01074-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation