An economic evaluation of community pharmacy-dispensed naloxone in Canada.

Aims: To determine the cost-effectiveness of pharmacy-based intranasal (IN) and intramuscular (IM) naloxone distribution in Canada. Methods: We developed a state-transition model for pharmacy-based naloxone distribution, every 3 years, to illicit, prescription, opioid-agonist therapy and nonopioid use populations compared to no naloxone distribution. We used a monthly cycle length, lifetime horizon and a Canadian provincial Ministry of Health perspective. Transition probabilities, cost and utility data were retrieved from the literature. Costs (2020) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were discounted 1.5% annually. Microsimulation, 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Distribution of naloxone to all Canadians compared to no distribution prevented 151 additional overdose deaths per 10,000 persons, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $50,984 per QALY for IM naloxone and an ICER of $126,060 per QALY for IN naloxone. Distribution of any naloxone to only illicit opioid users was the most cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that survival rates for illicit opioid users were most influenced by the availability of either emergency medical services or naloxone. Conclusion: Distribution of IM and IN naloxone to all Canadians every 3 years is likely cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $140,000 Canadian dollars/QALY (~3 × gross domestic product from the World Health Organization). Distribution to people who use illicit opioids was most cost-effective and prevented the most deaths. This is important, as more overdose deaths could be prevented through nationwide public funding of IN naloxone kits through pharmacies, since individuals report a preference for IN naloxone and these formulations are easier to use, save lives and are cost-effective. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2024;157:xx-xx.

Remunerated patient care services and injections by pharmacists: An international update.

OBJECTIVES: Recognizing pharmacists' increasing roles as primary care providers, programs offering remuneration for patient care services, and the administration of injections by pharmacists continue to be implemented. The objective of this article is to provide an update on remuneration programs available to pharmacists internationally for nondispensing services. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches for relevant articles published from January 2013 to February 2018 across Pubmed (Medline), Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Library, Econlit, Scopus, and Web of Science. Gray literature searches, including targeted searches of websites of payers and pharmacy associations, were also performed. STUDY SELECTION: Programs were included if they were newly introduced or had changes to patient eligibility criteria and fees since previously published reviews and if they were established programs offered by third-party payers for activities separate from dispensing. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive information on each program was extracted, including the program's jurisdiction (country and state, provincial, or regional level, as applicable), payer, service description, patient eligibility criteria, and fee structure. RESULTS: Over the 5-year period studied, 95 new programs for noninjection patient care services and 37 programs for pharmacist-administered injections were introduced. Large ranges in fees offered for similar programs were observed across programs, even within the same country or region, at an average of $US 71 for an initial medication review, $19 for follow-ups to these reviews, $18 for prescription adaptations, and $13 for injection administration. Apart from some smoking cessation programs in England, which offered incentive payments for successful quits, all services were remunerated on a fee-for-service basis, often in the form of a flat fee regardless of the time spent providing the service. CONCLUSION: Although funding for pharmacists' activities continues to show growth, concerns identified in previous reviews persist, including the great variability in remunerated activities, patient eligibility, and fees. These issues may limit opportunities for multijurisdictional program and service outcome evaluation.

Remunerated patient care services and injections by pharmacists: An international update.

OBJECTIVES: Recognizing pharmacists' increasing roles as primary care providers, programs offering remuneration for patient care services and the administration of injections by pharmacists continue to be implemented. The objective of this article is to provide an update on remuneration programs available to pharmacists internationally for nondispensing services. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches for relevant articles published from January 2013 to February 2018 across PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Library, Econlit, Scopus and Web of Science. Gray literature searches, including targeted searches of websites of payers and pharmacy associations, were also performed. STUDY SELECTION: Programs were included if they were newly introduced or had changes to patient eligibility criteria and fees since previously published reviews and if they were established programs offered by third-party payers for activities separate from dispensing. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive information on each program was extracted, including the program's jurisdiction (country and state, provincial or regional level, as applicable), payer, service description, patient eligibility criteria and fee structure. RESULTS: Over the 5-year period studied, 95 new programs for noninjection patient care services and 37 programs for pharmacist-administered injections were introduced. Large ranges in fees offered for similar programs were observed across programs, even within the same country or region, at an average of $US 71 for an initial medication review, $19 for follow-ups to these reviews, $18 for prescription adaptations and $13 for injection administration. Apart from some smoking cessation programs in England, which offered incentive payments for successful quits, all services were remunerated on a fee-for-service basis, often in the form of a flat fee regardless of the time spent providing the service. CONCLUSION: Although funding for pharmacists' activities continues to show growth, concerns identified in previous reviews persist, including the great variability in remunerated activities, patient eligibility and fees. These issues may limit opportunities for multijurisdictional program and service outcome evaluation. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2019;152:xx-xx.

Demystifying serotonin syndrome (or serotonin toxicity).

OBJECTIVE: To review the symptoms of serotonin toxicity (commonly referred to as serotonin syndrome) and the causative drugs and their mechanisms of action, and to equip primary care providers with practical strategies to prevent and identify serotonin toxicity. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles on serotonin toxicity, the causes, and the differential diagnosis using search terms related to serotonin toxicity (serotonin syndrome, serotonin toxicity, serotonin overdose), causes (individual names of drug classes, individual drug names), and diagnosis (differential diagnosis, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, anticholinergic toxicity, discontinuation syndrome, malignant hyperthermia, serotonin symptoms). Experts in psychiatric medicine, psychiatric pharmacy, clinical pharmacology, and medical toxicology were consulted. Evidence is level II and III. MAIN MESSAGE: Serotonin toxicity is a drug-induced condition caused by too much serotonin in synapses in the brain. Cases requiring hospitalization are rare, and mild cases caused by serotonin-mediated side effects are unlikely to be fatal. Patients present with a combination of neuromuscular, autonomic, and mental status symptoms. Serotonin-elevating drugs include monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and serotonin releasers. Most cases involve 2 drugs that increase serotonin in different ways; the most concerning combination is a monoamine oxidase inhibitor with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. CONCLUSION: Family physicians play a key role in identifying and preventing serotonin syndrome by teaching patients to recognize symptoms and monitoring patients throughout therapy.

Will I lose my license for that? A closer look at Canadian disciplinary hearings and what it means for pharmacists' practice to full scope.

OBJECTIVE: Concerns about liability from clinical errors have been cited as a barrier preventing greater adoption of practice change. Our objective was to determine the most common actions or omissions that result in disciplinary action for pharmacists and the restrictive actions imposed. METHODS: Canadian disciplinary reports were reviewed. Cases were coded as charges of professional misconduct, unskilled practice or dishonest business practices. RESULTS: There were 558 disciplinary cases from 10 provinces that occurred between January 2010 and July 2017. Professional misconduct charges commonly involved stealing/diverting or inappropriately dispensing narcotic drugs, pharmacy supervision/premises charges and refusing to cooperate with the college. Charges of unskilled practice included dispensing the wrong drug, failing to assess the appropriateness of a drug order, providing the wrong dose and failing to counsel. Fraudulent billing practices and accepting rebates from generic drug companies were the most common dishonest business practices. Professional misconduct, unskilled practice and dishonest business practice charges were involved in 342 (61%), 169 (30%) and 191 (34%) cases, respectively. Most cases occurred in community pharmacies and were not caused by an isolated clinical error. Fines were the most common penalty, followed by temporary license suspensions, professional development and reprimands. License revocations were the least common (4%), often involving professional misconduct. CONCLUSION: This review suggests that disciplinary action against a pharmacist for an isolated, unintentional clinical error is uncommon and that losing a license is rare. Fear of disciplinary action should not be a barrier to practice change or the provision of full-scope patient care services.

How Appropriate Is All This Data Sharing? Building Consensus Around What We Need to Know About Shared Electronic Health Records in Extended Circles of Care.

BACKGROUND: The bulk of healthcare spending is on individuals who have complex needs related to age, income, chronic disease and mental illness. Care involves many different professions, and interoperable electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly essential. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this paper is to describe the use of a nominal group technique (NGT) to develop a stakeholder-centred research agenda for clinical interoperability in extended circles of care that include social supports. METHODS: We held a day-long meeting with 30 stakeholders, including primary care providers, social supports, patient representatives, health region managers, technology experts, health organizations and experts in privacy, law and ethics. Participants considered, "What research needs to be done to better understand how EHRs should be shared across large healthcare teams that include social supports?" Following sensitizing presentations from researchers and participants, we used an NGT to generate and rank research questions on a 9-point Likert scale. We retained research questions that had a mean score of at least 6.5/9 by at least 70% of the participants over two rounds of consensus-building. RESULTS: Participants identified and ranked 57 research questions. Five items achieved consensus, related to 1) the impact of information sharing on care team outcomes, 2) data quality/accuracy, 3) cost/benefit, 4) what processes use what data and 5) regulation/legislation. CONCLUSION: Healthcare reforms are increasingly focused on systems that integrate and coordinate multidisciplinary care, facilitated by EHRs. Research prioritization will ensure common concerns and barriers are addressed and resolved.

Ready or not? Pharmacist perceptions of a changing injection scope of practice before it happens.

BACKGROUND: Since 2012, Ontario pharmacists have been authorized to administer the influenza vaccine. In April 2016, the Ontario College of Pharmacists (OCP) proposed to expand the Pharmacy Act to allow pharmacists to vaccinate against 13 additional conditions. The OCP held an online public consultation and invited pharmacists, members of the public and organizations to weigh in on the proposed changes. Our objective was to explore the factors influencing how Ontario pharmacists may adopt or reject an expanding scope of practice, using data from the public consultation. METHODS: We coded the responses to the public consultation in 2 ways: 1) sentiment analysis and 2) an integrative approach to coding using Rogers's diffusion of innovations theory across 5 domains: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. RESULTS: Responses from pharmacists, the public and organizations were moderately positive on average. Pharmacists most commonly mentioned relative advantages, including benefits for patients, pharmacists, physicians and the health system. Positive responses focused on accessibility for patients, improved vaccine coverage, lower health care spending and freed physician time but cited lack of prescribing privileges as a barrier to the proposed changes. Negative responses focused on increased workload, patient safety concerns and the complexity of travel medicine. CONCLUSIONS: The expanded immunization services are likely to be well received by most pharmacists. Convenience and accessibility for patients were commonly cited benefits, but the changes will be only a slight improvement over the current system unless pharmacists can prescribe these vaccines. Although employers responded positively, the question remains whether they will support pharmacists in a way that aligns with pharmacists' values and expectations. Decision makers must pay close attention to the pharmacy infrastructure and how this will affect uptake of these services. Recognition of this, combined with pharmacists' positive perceptions of the expanded scope, will facilitate smooth integration of this legislation into Ontario pharmacy practice.

Paying pharmacists for patient care: A systematic review of remunerated pharmacy clinical care services.

BACKGROUND: Expansion of scope of practice and diminishing revenues from dispensing are requiring pharmacists to increasingly adopt clinical care services into their practices. Pharmacists must be able to receive payment in order for provision of clinical care to be sustainable. The objective of this study is to update a previous systematic review by identifying remunerated pharmacist clinical care programs worldwide and reporting on uptake and patient care outcomes observed as a result. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in several databases, including MEDLINE, Embase and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, for papers referencing remuneration, pharmacy and cognitive services. Searches of the grey literature and Internet were also conducted. Papers and programs were identified up to December 2012 and were included if they were not reported in our previous review. One author performed data abstraction, which was independently reviewed by a second author. All results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: Sixty new remunerated programs were identified across Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, ranging in complexity from emergency contraception counseling to minor ailments schemes and comprehensive medication management. In North America, the average fee provided for a medication review is $68.86 (all figures are given in Canadian dollars), with $23.37 offered for a follow-up visit and $15.16 for prescription adaptations. Time-dependent fees were reimbursed at $93.60 per hour on average. Few programs evaluated uptake and outcomes of these services but, when available, indicated slow uptake but improved chronic disease markers and cost savings. DISCUSSION: Remuneration for pharmacists' clinical care services is highly variable, with few programs reporting program outcomes. Programs and pharmacists are encouraged to examine the time required to perform these activities and the outcomes achieved to ensure that fees are adequate to sustain these patient care activities.

Démystifier le syndrome (ou la toxicité) sérotoninergique.

OBJECTIF: Passer en revue les symptômes de la toxicité sérotoninergique (communément appelée le syndrome sérotoninergique), les médicaments causatifs et leurs mécanismes d'action, et proposer aux médecins de soins primaires des stratégies pratiques pour prévenir et dépister la toxicité sérotoninergique. QUALITÉ DES DONNÉES: Une recherche documentaire a été effectuée dans PubMed et Google Scholar pour trouver des articles pertinents sur la toxicité sérotoninergique, ses causes et les diagnostics différentiels, à l'aide d'expressions de recherche liées à la toxicité sérotoninergique (serotonin syndrome, serotonin toxicity, serotonin overdose), à ses causes (noms individuels de classes de médicaments, noms individuels de médicaments), et à son diagnostic (differential diagnosis, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, anticholinergic toxicity, discontinuation syndrome, malignant hyperthermia, serotonin symptoms). Des experts en médecine psychiatrique, en pharmacie psychiatrique, en pharmacologie clinique et en toxicologie médicale ont été consultés. Les données probantes sont de niveaux II et III. MESSAGE PRINCIPAL: La toxicité sérotoninergique est un problème induit par des médicaments, qui est causé par la présence de trop de sérotonine dans les synapses du cerveau. Les cas qui exigent une hospitalisation sont rares, et il est peu probable que les cas bénins dus aux effets secondaires médiés par la sérotonine soient fatals. Les patients présentent une combinaison de symptômes neuromusculaires, du système nerveux autonome et de l'état mental. Parmi les médicaments qui augmentent la sérotonine se trouvent les inhibiteurs de la monoamine oxydase, les inhibiteurs de la recapture de la sérotonine et les libérateurs de sérotonine. Dans la plupart des cas, 2 médicaments qui augmentent la sérotonine de façons différentes sont en cause; la combinaison la plus inquiétante est un inhibiteur de la monoamine oxydase avec un inhibiteur sélectif de la recapture de la sérotonine ou un inhibiteur de la recapture de la sérotonine-noradrénaline. CONCLUSION: Les médecins de famille jouent un rôle important dans la détection et la prévention du syndrome sérotoninergique en enseignant aux patients à reconnaître les symptômes et en surveillant les patients durant toute leur thérapie.

Publicly funded remuneration for the administration of injections by pharmacists: An international review.

BACKGROUND: The administration of injections has become an increasingly common addition to pharmacists' scope of practice. Four Canadian provinces, all US states and a number of other countries have regulations allowing pharmacists to administer injections. However, the extent to which such services are remunerated is unknown. METHODS: We contacted regulatory and advocacy organizations within those jurisdictions where pharmacists are authorized to administer injections to identify publicly funded programs that pay pharmacists for these services, as well as details of the eligible drugs/vaccines. Patient or private insurer payment programs were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 281 organizations we contact-ed, 104 provided information on a total of 34 pharmacist vaccination programs throughout Canada, the United States, England, Wales and Ireland. Converted to 2013 Canadian dollars, remuneration averages $13.12 (SD $4.63) per injection (range, $4.14-$21.21). All regions allow pharmacists to bill for administration of the influenza vaccine, while some states allow for a number of other vaccines. Alberta has the broadest range of injections eligible for remuneration. DISCUSSION: Despite evidence of increased vaccination rates in areas allowing pharmacist administration of injections, the availability of publicly funded remuneration programs and the fee offered vary by more than 5-fold across North America and the United Kingdom. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-administered injections have great public health potential. The range of injections eligible for remuneration should be expanded to include a wide range of vaccines and other injectable drugs, and remuneration should be sufficient to encourage more pharmacists to provide this service.

Pharmacist Disciplinary Action: What Do Pharmacists Get in Trouble for?

Objective: This study aims to determine the reasons for disciplinary action and resultant consequences for Canadian pharmacists and any associations with demographic factors. Methods: Regulatory body disciplinary action cases from 10 Canadian provinces were coded. Demographic information was coded. Results: There were 665 pharmacist cases from nine provinces between January 2010 and December 2020. The rate of disciplinary action was low (1.37 cases/1,000 practitioners/year). Professional misconduct was the most common category of violation. Male pharmacists were overrepresented in disciplinary action cases. Most cases involved community pharmacists. Conclusion: This study is the first, to our knowledge, in Canada to analyze the demographic factors of pharmacists subjected to disciplinary action. It updates a previous review of pharmacist disciplinary action (Foong et al. 2018).