Relationships Between Stigma, Risk Tolerance, and Buprenorphine Dispensing Intentions Among Community-Based Pharmacists: Results From a National Sample.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that pharmacists sometimes act as barriers to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) accessing buprenorphine treatment. The present research explores how community pharmacists' endorsement (vs non-endorsement) of stigmatizing beliefs about patients taking buprenorphine relate to intentions, comfort, and decisions regarding dispensing buprenorphine for OUD. In addition, we assessed attitudes toward risk in pharmacy practice as a novel correlate of dispensing intentions and decisions. METHODS: A sample of 207 active community-based pharmacists practicing in the United States responded to survey items measuring stigma, risk tolerance, and intentions to dispense buprenorphine. The survey included 2 vignettes in which patients presented to the pharmacy with a prescription for buprenorphine, and respondents rated their comfort with dispensing and decisions regarding dispensing in the vignette. RESULTS: Results suggest that both stigma toward patients taking buprenorphine to treat OUD and tolerance for risk in pharmacy settings are related to differences in pharmacists' intentions to and willingness to dispense buprenorphine for OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the need for interventions to reduce stigma associated with buprenorphine use among pharmacists and suggest that risk tolerance is an important determinant of pharmacists' behavior that merits further study.

Research Priorities for Expansion of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in the Community Pharmacy.

In the last decade, the U.S. opioid overdose crisis has magnified, particularly since the introduction of synthetic opioids, including fentanyl. Despite the benefits of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), only about a fifth of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the U.S. receive MOUD. The ubiquity of pharmacists, along with their extensive education and training, represents great potential for expansion of MOUD services, particularly in community pharmacies. The National Institute on Drug Abuse's National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (NIDA CTN) convened a working group to develop a research agenda to expand OUD treatment in the community pharmacy sector to support improved access to MOUD and patient outcomes. Identified settings for research include independent and chain pharmacies and co-located pharmacies within primary care settings. Specific topics for research included adaptation of pharmacy infrastructure for clinical service provision, strategies for interprofessional collaboration including health service models, drug policy and regulation, pharmacist education about OUD and OUD treatment, including didactic, experiential, and interprofessional curricula, and educational interventions to reduce stigma towards this patient population. Together, expanding these research areas can bring effective MOUD to where it is most needed.

From patient centered to person centered: The pharmacist's role and value in community-integrated care transformation.

Patient-centered care lies at the center of the Joint Commission of Pharmacy Practitioners Pharmacists' Patient Care Process and recognizes the pharmacist's responsibility for the patient's drug-related and health needs, concerns, and expectations as well as prioritizing the patient's interests before all others. Person-centered care more explicitly expands the pharmacist's understanding of the patient to a person with rights, knowledge, and experiences that extend outside of disease, illness, and pharmacotherapy. The Social Care Framework developed by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine provides a roadmap to how pharmacists can provide community-integrated care that is consistent with person centeredness. Doing so can expand the pharmacist's role and value in a time of community-integrated care transformation.

Perceptions, policies, and practices related to dispensing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: A national survey of community-based pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Increasing buprenorphine prescribing for opioid use disorder (OUD) has been a major focus of U.S. opioid response efforts. However, concerns related to dispensing buprenorphine have been identified among pharmacists. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe perceptions, policies, and practices reported by community-based pharmacists in relation to dispensing buprenorphine for OUD and to compare these responses by practice setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to a random sample of 6376 pharmacists. Responses were collected anonymously from October 16, 2021, to November 7, 2021. RESULTS: A response rate of 5.1% was achieved with 325 responders, and 281 were eligible to complete the survey. Most reported practicing in a chain (50.9%) or independent pharmacy (34.7%) as a staff pharmacist (39.7%) or pharmacist-in-charge (37.0%). Most (68.1%) indicated they could usually or always fill a buprenorphine prescription promptly. The most common pharmacy policies related to buprenorphine dispensing were checking the prescription drug monitoring program (71.3%), validating the prescriber's X-waiver (44.9%), accepting only local prescribers (37.4%), and prohibiting refills more than one day early (35.8%). Policies limiting buprenorphine access to local prescribers, local patients, and established patients varied by practice setting and were most common in independent pharmacies. The strongest barriers to buprenorphine dispensing were insurance prior authorization, difficulty reaching prescribers with questions, and concerns about buprenorphine diversion. The strongest facilitators of buprenorphine dispensing were increased communication with prescribers, increased trust with prescribers, increased trust with patients, and increased education for pharmacists. CONCLUSION: Most respondents indicated they were willing and able to dispense buprenorphine products for OUD promptly. However, they also reported discomfort dispensing when factors representing potential risk of diversion are present. Mitigating this hypersensitivity to diversion risk among pharmacists should be a focus of regulatory agencies and professional organizations. Efforts to address the unique concerns of independent pharmacists will also be essential to improve access.

The Report of the 2020-2021 Professional Affairs Standing Committee: Pharmacists' Unique Role and Integration in Healthcare Settings.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2020-21 Professional Affairs Committee was charged to (1) Read all six reports from the 2019-20 AACP standing committees to identify elements of these reports that are relevant to the committee's work this year; (2) Identify opportunities and models of integration of pharmacist care services in physician and other health provider practices beyond primary care; (3) Differentiate and make the case for the integration of pharmacist care services from that of other mid-level providers; and (4) From the work on the aforementioned charges, identify salient activities for the Center To Accelerate Pharmacy Practice Transformation and Academic Innovation (CTAP) for consideration by the AACP Strategic Planning Committee and AACP staff. This report provides information on the committee's process to address the committee charges, describes the rationale for and the results from a call to colleges and schools of pharmacy to provide information on their integrating pharmacist care services in physician and other health provider practices beyond primary care practice, and discusses how pharmacist-provided patient care services differ from those provided by other healthcare providers. The committee offers a revision to a current association policy statement, a proposed policy statement as well as recommendations to CTAP and AACP and suggestions to colleges and schools of pharmacy pertaining to the committee charges.

The Report of the 2019-2020 Professional Affairs Standing Committee: Pharmacist Integration with Primary Care Practices.

The 2019-2020 Professional Affairs Committee was charged to (1) Describe the leadership role of schools of pharmacy in advancing interprofessional practice, with an emphasis on physician-pharmacist collaborative relationships; (2) Establish an inventory of resources that can support school efforts to grow collaborative partnerships between pharmacists and physicians; (3) Determine gaps that exist in the resources required to support schools in efforts to facilitate expansion of interprofessional partnerships; and (4) Define strategies and draft an action plan for AACP's role in facilitating member school efforts to accelerate the development of interprofessional practices within their geography of influence. This report provides information on the committee's process to address the committee charges as well as background and resources pertaining to the charges, describes the rationale for and the results from the focus groups conducted at the 2020 AACP Interim Meeting, communicates the results of an initial inventory of models that integrate pharmacists with primary care practices, and provides an overview on issues to continue the work to integrate pharmacists with primary care practices. The committee offered several revisions to current association policy statements and provided a proposed policy statement and several recommendations to AACP pertaining to the committee charges.

PaCIR: A tool to enhance pharmacist patient care intervention reporting.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a pharmacist patient care services intervention reporting checklist to be used in conjunction with existing primary reporting tools. The tool should enhance consistent reporting of pharmacist patient care interventions. Tool use in pharmacist-patient care intervention reporting may increase: (1) likelihood for inclusion in higher order analyses and (2) successful replication. METHODS: Adhering to principles of the Equator Network, a modified Delphi approach was used. An expert group identified guidance need, conducted a thorough literature search confirming need, developed a comprehensive list of potential elements, refined the list via multiple rounds, finalized language and structure, and published the checklist. Multiple rounds of iterative input were completed face to face, in conference calls, and during public comment periods. The finalized list of elements was organized into a logical flow with the use of clear and concise language and then transformed into an intuitive checklist. RESULTS: The core task force identified 9 critical components over a 4-year period Collectively, the input represented more than 200 stakeholders. Stakeholders overwhelmingly supported the inclusion (89%; n = 29) and clarity (91%; n = 26) of each element. The final 9 elements were organized into a checklist to enhance pharmacist patient care intervention reporting (PaCIR). Accompanying each element is a specific explanation justifying its inclusion. An appendix containing published and created examples of how authors may satisfactorily meet each element is provided. CONCLUSION: Use of the PaCIR checklist will enhance the quality of reporting of pharmacist patient care intervention studies. This enhanced quality can support replication of the studies and increase the likelihood these studies will be considered for inclusion in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Researchers are urged to consider use of reporting guides such as PaCIR during the project design phase.

The Need for Faculty Knowledge and Promotion of Postgraduate Year One Community-Based Pharmacy Residencies.

Postgraduate year one (PGY1) community-based pharmacy residency programs are intended to build upon the Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) education and outcomes. The goal of the residency program is to develop community-based pharmacist practitioners with diverse patient care, leadership, and education skills. This commentary will inform faculty mentors about the history, evolution, structure, and design of PGY1 community-based pharmacy residency programs. This commentary will also review the equivalency of PGY1 community-based pharmacy residency programs to other PGY1 programs, specifically to PGY1 pharmacy programs typically administered in hospitals and health systems. Faculty who are knowledgeable about PGY1 community-based pharmacy residency programs will be able to provide mentorship and promotion for student pharmacists who are interested in direct patient care.

Emerging Developments in Pharmacists' Scope of Practice to Address Unmet Health Care Needs.

Pharmacists' comprehensive training is being leveraged in emerging patient care service opportunities that include prescriptive authority under collaborative practice agreements (CPAs) with prescribers or through state-based protocols. CPAs and state-based protocols expand pharmacists' scope of practice to allow the pharmacist to perform designated functions under the terms of the agreement or protocol. For patient-specific CPAs, this often includes initiating, modifying, or discontinuing therapy and ordering laboratory tests. For population-based CPAs and state-based protocols, pharmacists are often authorized to initiate medications to address a public health need. CPAs and state-based protocols are mechanisms to optimally use pharmacists' education and training.

Historical development and emerging trends of community pharmacy residencies.

Clinical pharmacy services necessitate appropriately trained pharmacists. Postgraduate year one (PGY1) community pharmacy residency programs (CPRPs) provide advanced training for pharmacists to provide multiple patient care services in the community setting. These programs provide an avenue to translate innovative ideas and services into clinical practice. In this paper, we describe the history and current status of PGY1 community pharmacy residency programs, including an analysis of the typical settings and services offered. Specific information on the trends of community programs compared with other PGY1 pharmacy residencies is also discussed. The information presented in this paper is intended to encourage discussion regarding the need for increasing the capacity of PGY1 community pharmacy residency programs.

Survey of medication therapy management programs under Medicare part D.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and summarize the enrollment criteria and benefit designs for medication therapy management (MTM) programs offered throughout the United States during the first year of the Medicare Part D benefit. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: United States between November 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. PARTICIPANTS: MTM benefit plan managers of major health insurance companies nationwide selected nonrandomly by the investigators from lists provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. INTERVENTION: Telephone interview and/or e-mail 12-item survey with mostly open-ended questions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics required for a patient to be enrolled in MTM programs and types of services provided along with modes of delivery. RESULTS: Interviews were completed or surveys returned from 21 distinct MTM programs representing 70 health insurance plans covering 12.1 million Medicare enrollees. Of the MTM programs offered, 90.5% restricted their enrollment based on number of diseases, with a median of 3 (range, 2-5) diseases required; 57.1% restricted enrollment based on the type of chronic condition; and 95.2% had requirements for the number of medications (median, 6; range, 2-24) necessary for enrollment in the program. The most frequently provided MTM services were patient education (75.0% of programs),patient adherence (70.0%), and medication review (60.0%). The median number of different service types provided by MTM programs was 3 (range, 2-7). MTM program services included the use of mailed interventions (76.1%) and inhouse call centers (90.4%). While only 4 of the 21 MTM programscontracted with pharmacies to provide some or all of their MTM services, these plans covered a large number of beneficiaries (7.5 million lives). CONCLUSION: MTM programs offered by prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage plans were highly variable during the first year of the Medicare Part D benefit. Definitive evidence supporting the effectiveness of many of the most common interventions is lacking.

Training experiences of current and former community pharmacy residents, 1986-2000.

OBJECTIVE: To identify why current and former community pharmacy residents chose a community pharmacy residency program (CPRP), what factors in the program were emphasized and not emphasized, what opportunities were available to them postresidency, and, for former residents, what skills learned during their residency have been most useful in their careers to date. DESIGN: Mail survey. PARTICIPANTS: 1999-2000 residents and former residents dating back to 1986. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reasons residents chose a CPRP over other residency or employment opportunities and respondents' ratings of the emphasis placed on a variety of skills and activities in their training programs. RESULTS: A total of 44 surveys were included in the final analysis, 18 (41%) of which were completed by 1999-2000 CPRP residents performing their residency at the time of the survey. The most common reasons for choosing a CPRP over other types of programs were opportunities for developing innovative services and direct patient interaction. Communication skills, clinical skills, and level of patient interaction were reported as being most highly emphasized. Management of the distribution system was most frequently cited as having "low" or "no" emphasis in their residency. Respondents listed marketing skills as the most common area requiring improvement or additional focus in their residency. Former residents cited leadership skills and the development of patient care services as the factors in their residency having the greatest impact on their careers to date. Postresidency opportunities most frequently sought included faculty, staff pharmacist, and clinical pharmacist positions. CONCLUSION: Candidates are drawn to CPRPs because of the opportunities such residencies offer to develop innovative services and provide direct patient care. Residents feel that many programs fail to provide adequate training in the areas of marketing services and obtaining reimbursement. Residency program directors should consider these findings when evaluating and marketing their programs.