Accessibility of Naloxone in Pharmacies Registered Under the Illinois Standing Order.

Introduction: To expand access to naloxone, the state of Illinois implemented a standing order allowing registered pharmacies to dispense the drug without an individual prescription. To participate under the standing order, pharmacies were required to opt in through a formal registration process. In our study we aimed to evaluate the availability and price of naloxone at registered pharmacies. Methods: This was a prospective, de-identified, cross-sectional telephone survey. Trained interviewers posed as potential customers and used a standardized script to determine the availability of naloxone between February-December, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as a pharmacy indicating it carried naloxone, currently had naloxone in stock, and was able to dispense it without an individual prescription. Results: Of 948 registered pharmacies, 886 (93.5%) were successfully contacted. Of those, 792 (83.4%) carried naloxone, 659 (74.4%) had naloxone in stock, and 472 (53.3%) allowed purchase without a prescription. Naloxone nasal spray (86.4%) was the formulation most commonly stocked. Chain pharmacies were more likely to carry naloxone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97-5.01, P < 0.01) and have naloxone in stock (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76-4.20, P < 0.01), but no more likely to dispense it without a prescription. Pharmacies in higher population areas (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, P < 0.05) and rural areas adjacent to metropolitan areas (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 025-0.98, P < 0.05) were less likely to have naloxone available without a prescription. Associations of naloxone availability based on other urbanicity designations, overdose count, and overdose rate were not significant. Conclusion: Among pharmacies in Illinois that formally registered to dispense naloxone without a prescription, the availability of naloxone remains limited. Additional interventions may be needed to maximize the potential impact of a statewide standing order.

Changes in Emergency Contraceptive Fills After Massachusetts' Statewide Standing Order.

This study examines whether policies that reduce prescribing barriers may improve access to emergency contraceptives, particularly ulipristal.

HPV vaccine standing orders and communication in primary care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Standing orders may improve HPV vaccination rates, but clinical staff's readiness to use them has not been well-explored. We sought to explore benefits and challenges to using HPV vaccine standing orders for adolescents ages 9 to 12, understand clinical staff roles in communication about HPV vaccine, and how standing orders can reduce barriers contributing to vaccine disparities among racial and ethnic marginalized groups. METHODS: Participants were a sample of 16 U.S. nurses, medical assistants, and healthcare providers working in primary care, recruited from June to September 2022. Trained staff conducted virtual, semi-structured qualitative interviews. We analyzed the resulting data using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Themes reflected benefits and challenges to using HPV vaccine standing orders and strategies to address clinic barriers to improve vaccine access and HPV vaccine communication. Benefits included faster and efficient clinic flow; fewer missed vaccine opportunities and promotion of early vaccination; and normalization of HPV vaccination as routine care. Challenges included possible exacerbation of existing HPV vaccine communication and recommendation barriers; and how the complexity of the vaccine administration schedule lessens nurses' and medical assistants' confidence to use standing orders. Strategies to address vaccine access barriers included using nurse-only visits to empower nurse autonomy and catch up on HPV vaccination; engaging clinical staff to follow up with overdue children; and educating parents on HPV vaccine before their child is vaccine eligible. CONCLUSION: Using HPV vaccine standing orders can promote autonomy for nurses and medical assistants and address vaccine access barriers. Clinical staff engagement and clinic support to mitigate existing vaccine communication barriers are needed to empower staff to use of HPV vaccine standing orders.

Naloxone Accessibility by Standing Order in North Carolina Community Pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: According to a standing order in North Carolina (NC), naloxone can be purchased without a provider prescription. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine whether same-day naloxone accessibility and cost vary by pharmacy type and rurality in NC. METHODS: A cross-sectional telephone audit of 202 NC community pharmacies stratified by pharmacy type and county of origin was conducted in March and April 2023. Trained "secret shoppers" enacted a standardized script and recorded whether naloxone was available and its cost. We examined the relationship between out-of-pocket naloxone cost, pharmacy type, and rurality. RESULTS: Naloxone could be purchased in 53% of the pharmacies contacted; 26% incorrectly noting that naloxone could be filled only with a provider prescription and 21% did not sell naloxone. Naloxone availability by standing order was statistically different by pharmacy type (chain/independent) (χ2 = 20.58, df = 4, P value < 0.001), with a higher frequency of willingness to dispense according to the standing order by chain pharmacies in comparison to independent pharmacies. The average quoted cost for naloxone nasal spray at chain pharmacies was $84.69; the cost was significantly more ($113.54; P < 0.001) at independent pharmacies. Naloxone cost did not significantly differ by pharmacy rurality (F2,136 = 2.38, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of NC community pharmacies audited dispense naloxone according to the statewide standing order, limiting same-day access to this life-saving medication. Costs were higher at independent pharmacies, which could be due to store-level policies. Future studies should further investigate these cost differences, especially as intranasal naloxone transitions from a prescription only to over-the-counter product.

Naloxone Accessibility Under the State Standing Order Across Mississippi.

Importance: Naloxone is a life-saving medication for individuals experiencing an opioid overdose. Naloxone standing orders aim to make naloxone more available by allowing patients improved access to this medication at community pharmacies; however, lawful availability does not mean that this life-saving intervention is accessible to patients. Objective: To characterize naloxone availability and out-of-pocket cost under the state standing order in Mississippi. Design, Setting, and Participants: This telephone-based, mystery-shopper census survey study included Mississippi community pharmacies open to the general public in Mississippi at the time of data collection. Community pharmacies were identified using the Hayes Directories April 2022 complete Mississippi pharmacy database. Data were collected from February to August 2022. Exposures: Mississippi House bill 996, the Naloxone Standing Order Act, signed into law in 2017, allowing pharmacists to dispense naloxone under a physician state standing order at a patient's request. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were naloxone availability under Mississippi's state standing order and the out-of-pocket cost of available formulations. Results: There were 591 open-door community pharmacies surveyed for this study, with a 100% response rate. The most common pharmacy type was independent (328 [55.50%]), followed by chain (147 [24.87%]) and grocery store (116 [19.63%]). When asked, "Do you have naloxone that I can pick up today?" 216 Mississippi pharmacies (36.55%) had naloxone available for purchase under the state standing order. Of the 591 pharmacies, 242 (40.95%) were unwilling to dispense naloxone under the state standing order. Among the 216 pharmacies with naloxone available, the median out-of-pocket cost for naloxone nasal spray (n = 202) across Mississippi was $100.00 (range, $38.11-$229.39; mean [SD], $105.58 [$35.42]) and the median out-of-pocket cost of naloxone injection (n = 14) was $37.70 (range, $17.00-$208.96; mean [SD], $66.62 [$69.27]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of open-door Mississippi community pharmacies, availability of naloxone was limited despite standing order implementation. This finding has important implications for the effectiveness of the legislation in preventing opioid overdose deaths in this region. Further studies are needed to understand pharmacists' unwillingness to dispense naloxone and the implications of lack of availability and unwillingness for further naloxone access interventions.

Characteristics and health service use of Medicaid-insured individuals filling naloxone under a standing order in Louisiana.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone distribution is a key intervention to reduce opioid overdose deaths. On January 23, 2017, Louisiana implemented a standing order that permits pharmacies to dispense naloxone to patients without a patient-specific prescription. OBJECTIVES: To examine the characteristics and health service use of Louisiana Medicaid members filling naloxone under the standing order. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Louisiana Medicaid members from January 23, 2017 to December 31, 2019. We extracted fee-for-service claims and managed care encounters for naloxone dispensed under the standing order. RESULTS: Overall, there were 2053 naloxone fills by 1912 unique individuals. The total number of naloxone fills increased from 22 in 2017 to 1218 in 2019. Most members (n = 1,586, 83.0%) received any type of health service and 20.4% (n = 391) received an opioid-related health service in the 30 days prior to filling naloxone. Additionally, 12.7% (n = 242) of members had received medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and 42.6% (n = 815) filled a prescription opioid analgesic within the 60 days prior to filling naloxone. Nineteen members (1.0%) had an emergency department visit for overdose within 90 days after filling naloxone. CONCLUSION: Standing orders play an important role in providing access to naloxone, even among Medicaid members who had recent encounters with health care providers. We identified multiple opportunities to improve naloxone prescribing among providers caring for Medicaid-insured people who use opioids, including prescribers of opioid analgesics or MOUD.

A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens. METHODS: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites. RESULTS: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%). CONCLUSION: Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Utilization of Pediatric Standing Orders by Triage Nurses in a Free-Standing Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric pain-related complaints continue to be a common presenting factor of most emergency departments (EDs). Studies have shown that several barriers in assessing and treating pediatric pain exist, including nursing knowledge regarding appropriate pain level assessment. OBJECTIVE: This quality improvement study aimed to provide and evaluate specific education regarding pediatric pain management for free-standing ED triage nurses to expedite medication administration during the triage phase of an ED visit. METHOD: This pre/post-test intervention study was used to measure whether the education provided to nurses working in a primarily adult patient free-standing ED increased the utilization of triage standing orders related to pediatric pain management. RESULTS: Paired sample t-tests results indicated a statistically significant increase (p = .000) in the percentage of patients that received pain medication during the triage phase of an ED visit after specific education was provided to triage nurses. CONCLUSION: Free-standing ED triage nurses are more likely to follow and implement triage standing orders if education explicitly related to pain management in pediatric patients has been provided. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pediatric pain management education should be revisited annually to re-educate nurses on the importance of early interventions.

Pharmacy naloxone codispensing: A mixed methods study of practices and perspectives under a statewide standing order program.

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.

Impact of the naloxone standing order on trends in opioid fatal overdose: an ecological analysis.

Background: Maryland expanded its "Statewide Naloxone Standing Order" (NSO) in 2017 to eliminate training and prescription requirements for obtaining naloxone, improve naloxone access, help reverse opioid overdose, and reduce overdose fatality rates.Objectives: To assess the change in the trends of fatal opioid overdose rates following the expansion of the Naloxone Standing Order (eNSO) and its association with the social determinants of health (SDoH).Methods: Data on overdose deaths and SDoH from 2015-2019 was collected and analyzed using interrupted time series and multivariate Poisson regression models to study the change in trends and the associations.Results: There was a significant decrease in the rate of fatal overdoses after the intervention: prescription opioid estimate number of deaths declined by .25 per 100,000 (p = .02), heroin estimate number of deaths declined by 1.83 per 100,000 (p < .001), fentanyl estimate number of deaths declined by 2.54 per 100,000 (p < .001). After controlling for eNOS implementation in Maryland, state-level estimates with high proportions of female residents and those with bachelor's degree or higher were associated with reduction in overdose, while state-level estimates with high proportions of African Americans and higher employment rates were associated with an increase in overdose.Conclusions: Our analysis shows that the expanded naloxone standing order is associated with reducing opioid-related overdose death rates. Even though we observed a significant reduction in overdose death rate in fentanyl-related deaths, the rate of deaths post-eNSO was still increasing, suggesting the need for additional measures to impact the rates of fentanyl.

Factors associated with naloxone availability and dispensing through Michigan's pharmacy standing order.

Background: Pharmacy standing order policies allow pharmacists to dispense naloxone, thereby increasing access to naloxone. Objectives: To describe pharmacy standing order participation and associations of pharmacy and community characteristics that predict naloxone availability and dispensing across eight counties in Michigan. Methods: We conducted a telephone survey of 662 standing order pharmacies with a response rate of 81% (n = 539). Pharmacies were linked with census tract-level demographics, overdose fatality rates, and dispensing data. County maps were created to visualize pharmacy locations relative to fatality rates. Regression models analyzed associations between pharmacy type, neighborhood characteristics, fatality rates, and these outcomes: naloxone availability, having ever dispensed naloxone, and counts of naloxone dispensed. Results: The prevalence of standing order pharmacies was 54% (n = 662/1231). Maps revealed areas with higher fatality rates had fewer pharmacies participating in the standing order or lacked any pharmacy access. Among standing order pharmacies surveyed, 85% (n = 458/539) had naloxone available and 82% had ever dispensed (n = 333/406). The mean out-of-pocket cost of Narcan® was $127.77 (SD: 23.93). National chains were more likely than regional chains to stock naloxone (AOR = 3.75, 95%CI = 1.77, 7.93) and to have ever dispensed naloxone (AOR 3.02, 95%CI = 1.21,7.57). Higher volume of naloxone dispensed was associated in neighborhoods with greater proportions of public health insurance (IRR = 1.38, 95%CI = 1.21, 1.58) and populations under 44 years old (IRR = 1.24, 95%CI = 1.04, 1.48). There was no association with neighborhood overdose fatality rates or race in regression models. Conclusion: As deaths from the opioid epidemic continue to escalate, efforts to expand naloxone access through greater standing order pharmacy participation are warranted.

Broadening access to naloxone: Community predictors of standing order naloxone distribution in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone is a prescription medication that reverses opioid overdoses. Allowing naloxone to be dispensed directly by a pharmacist without an individual prescription under a naloxone standing order (NSO) can expand access. The community-level factors associated with naloxone dispensed under NSO are unknown. METHODS: Using a dataset comprised of pharmacy reports of naloxone dispensed under NSO from 70% of Massachusetts retail pharmacies, we examined relationships between community-level demographics, rurality, measures of treatment for opioid use disorder, and overdose deaths with naloxone dispensed under NSO per ZIP Code-quarter from 2014 until 2018. We used a multi-variable zero-inflated negative binomial model, assessing odds of any naloxone dispensed under NSO, as well as a multi-variable negative binomial model assessing quantities of naloxone dispensed under NSO. RESULTS: From 2014-2018, quantities of naloxone dispensed under NSO and the number of pharmacies dispensing any naloxone under NSO increased over time. However, communities with greater percentages of people with Hispanic ethnicity (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.96 per 5% increase), and rural communities compared to urban communities (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.90) were less likely to dispense any naloxone by NSO. Communities with more individuals treated with buprenorphine dispensed more naloxone under NSO, as did communities with more opioid-related overdose deaths. CONCLUSION: Naloxone dispensing has substantially increased, in part driven by standing orders. A lower likelihood of naloxone being dispensed under NSO in communities with larger Hispanic populations and in more rural communities suggests the need for more equitable access to, and uptake of, lifesaving medications like naloxone.

Could standing orders have a place? A phenomenological exploration of experienced ward-based registered nurses' views on the escalation protocol for patient deterioration.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore experienced ward-based Registered Nurses' views on the potential use of standing orders, prior to the escalation protocol, for patient deterioration. BACKGROUND: Ward based nurses are required to follow set steps of the escalation protocol. The introduction of standing order policies would allow nurses to intervene earlier when deterioration was first detected. DESIGN: Hermeneutic Phenomenology. METHODS: Ten experienced ward-based RNs were recruited. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, with the data subjected to thematic analysis. Diekelmann's framework was used to analyse the texts, seeking the highest level of hermeneutic analysis namely, a constitutive pattern. COREQ guidelines were utilised. RESULTS: Four main themes emerged: (1) Ambiguity in perception: the escalation protocol; (2) Observations within acceptable parameters, but the patient is deteriorating; (3) Paradoxes of escalation: well laid out protocol, but hard to escalate; (4) We could intervene with standing orders, but are we permitted? The constitutive pattern namely, Dualism in Perception related to the dissonance conveyed by participants regarding the escalation protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the benefits of the escalation protocol for junior staff, the RNs offered critique of the established escalation practices and the restrictive role of the protocol. Another aspect of the protocol, that is 'worried criterion' was viewed positively. The participants expressed a desire to apply nurse-driven standing orders, to enable them to intervene earlier for patient deterioration. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Organisations should consider new policies introducing standing orders for implementation by experienced RNs. The engagement of experienced ward-based nurses in forming 'patient at-risk teams' could assist organisations to deal with cases of clinical deterioration prior to activation of the escalation of care protocol.

Pharmacists' experiences with a statewide naloxone standing order program in Massachusetts: a mixed methods study.

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.

Community pharmacists in Virginia dispensing naloxone under a standing order: A qualitative study.

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.

The Effects of Vaccine Standing Orders on Pediatric Vaccination Rates: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccinations are one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, leading to a reduction in morbidity and mortality associated with the infectious diseases they prevent. Unfortunately, vaccination rates within the U.S. have been declining, and many of these vaccine-preventable diseases are again on the rise. Due to this, methods to increase vaccination rates are being explored. Vaccine standing orders are one method being employed. This pilot study explored the effects vaccine standing orders placed in the electronic medical record (EMR) had on the number of pediatric vaccinations administered in one South Dakota clinic. METHODS: Nursing staff reviewed the EMR and state records to determine what immunizations the pediatric patients, defined as those 18 years of age and under, were due for according to the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) recommended vaccination schedule. They then placed vaccine standing orders in the EMR for each delinquent vaccination based on these findings. The number of vaccines administered during a five-month period before (Jan. 1 - May 31, 2019) and a five-month period after (June 1 - Oct.31, 2019) implementation of standing orders were compared. Results were analyzed using an independent samples t-test. RESULTS: The absolute number of vaccinations administered after standing orders were instituted was greater than those administered prior to standing orders. The average number of vaccines given per month more than doubled, resulting in a statistically significant increase in vaccination rates by 117 percent. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated a significant increase in the number of immunizations administered with the use of standing orders.

Educational programs implemented for pharmacists after state passage of a standing order for naloxone: A systematic review of current practices.

OBJECTIVE: This review describes the current educational interventions that have been created for pharmacists after the implementation of a standing order for naloxone. METHODS: Search strategies were constructed for 3 databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL), which were queried between February 1, 2019, and March 5, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened 224 titles and abstracts from these databases. The descriptive criteria of each study, such as rationale, design, study location, population, and method of intervention, were included. RESULTS: Eight articles met the inclusion criteria; 4 were delivered in person, 2 were online programs, and 2 used combined in-person and online methodologies. Of the 8 studies, 4 were delivered to practicing pharmacists, and 4 were designed for student pharmacists. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists seem to engage in more overdose prevention behaviors after participating in the novel educational program as compared with taking the state-mandated training alone. Both student pharmacists and practicing pharmacists had promising postintervention results, with post-test scores indicating a statistically significant increase in knowledge or improvement in naloxone-relevant skills. The results of this review indicate the need to critically analyze the implementation of standing order laws for naloxone, specifically how pharmacists are being trained. The next steps include publication of existing best practices for educational interventions for pharmacists that may not currently be in the literature.

An audit of nurses using standing order directives to administer medications to children at risk of contracting rheumatic fever.

AIM: The following article reports an audit, conducted between July 2014 and July 2017, of adherence to best practice in medication administration and documentation by nurses. METHOD: A sample of 47 registered nurses' (RNs') documentation relating to the administration of 939 medications using standing order directives were examined and scored by seven senior nurses and a medical practitioner against an audit tool. The scores were divided into four quartiles with the top two quartiles demonstrating best practice in adherence to safety standards for the administration of medication. RESULTS: Forty-three RNs (91.5%) scored in the top two quartiles. The remaining four RNs (8.5%), following supervision by a senior nurse, subsequently demonstrated improvement in their documentation to the quartile one range of the audit tool. This audit demonstrates that, following education in diagnosis and treatment of common childhood conditions, the majority of nurses who were audited could diagnose simple conditions of childhood and safely administer medications to them. Moreover, two years after the programme was introduced, the serious sequelae of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) reduced in children aged 5-12 years. CONCLUSION: RNs who took part in the audit used standing order directives to safely administer medications to children. RN prescribing throughout New Zealand should be explored as an effective means to provide timely treatment and improve patient outcomes.