Australian community pharmacists' experiences of prescription drug monitoring programs: Comparisons between mandated and nonmandated states.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Journal of the American Pharmacists Association Pub Date : 2024-12-16 DOI:10.1016/j.japh.2024.102313
Rose Laing, Pei Ying, Ting Xia, Suzanne Nielsen, Louisa Picco
{"title":"Australian community pharmacists' experiences of prescription drug monitoring programs: Comparisons between mandated and nonmandated states.","authors":"Rose Laing, Pei Ying, Ting Xia, Suzanne Nielsen, Louisa Picco","doi":"10.1016/j.japh.2024.102313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) track patients' prescription records for high-risk medications and prompt real-time alerts to pharmacists when specific criteria are met. PDMPs are increasingly implemented by health care systems to attempt to mitigate harms associated with prescription opioids.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to explore and compare PDMP experiences among Australian community pharmacists from states where PDMP use is mandated and nonmandated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A representative sample of community pharmacists from New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. The survey collected pharmacy and pharmacist-related information and asked pharmacists to rank PDMP's usefulness and barriers on a 5-point scale. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences in scores between mandated and nonmandated states.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 690 pharmacists were included. Pharmacists in mandated states had statistically higher mean 'usefulness' scores for 5 out of 17 items, such as informing clinical decision-making (P < 0.001) and increasing confidence to refuse medication supply (P = 0.002). PDMP-related barriers were rarely reported by pharmacists, although there were statistically significant differences for specific barriers between mandated and nonmandated states. Nonmandated states had significantly higher mean scores for 5 barriers, including 'unsure what to do with the PDMP information' (P < 0.001) and 'PDMP is not integrated into dispensing software' (P = 0.005). Mandated states had statistically higher mean scores for 9 barriers, including 'not all scripts appear in PDMP' (P < 0.001) and 'inaccurate information in the PDMP' (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were significant differences in pharmacists' PDMP experiences between mandated and nonmandated states, which may have policy implications given Australia's recent investment into national prescription monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":50015,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Pharmacists Association","volume":" ","pages":"102313"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Pharmacists Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2024.102313","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) track patients' prescription records for high-risk medications and prompt real-time alerts to pharmacists when specific criteria are met. PDMPs are increasingly implemented by health care systems to attempt to mitigate harms associated with prescription opioids.

Objective: This study aims to explore and compare PDMP experiences among Australian community pharmacists from states where PDMP use is mandated and nonmandated.

Methods: A representative sample of community pharmacists from New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. The survey collected pharmacy and pharmacist-related information and asked pharmacists to rank PDMP's usefulness and barriers on a 5-point scale. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences in scores between mandated and nonmandated states.

Results: In total, 690 pharmacists were included. Pharmacists in mandated states had statistically higher mean 'usefulness' scores for 5 out of 17 items, such as informing clinical decision-making (P < 0.001) and increasing confidence to refuse medication supply (P = 0.002). PDMP-related barriers were rarely reported by pharmacists, although there were statistically significant differences for specific barriers between mandated and nonmandated states. Nonmandated states had significantly higher mean scores for 5 barriers, including 'unsure what to do with the PDMP information' (P < 0.001) and 'PDMP is not integrated into dispensing software' (P = 0.005). Mandated states had statistically higher mean scores for 9 barriers, including 'not all scripts appear in PDMP' (P < 0.001) and 'inaccurate information in the PDMP' (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: There were significant differences in pharmacists' PDMP experiences between mandated and nonmandated states, which may have policy implications given Australia's recent investment into national prescription monitoring.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚社区药剂师处方药监测项目的经验:强制性和非强制性州的比较。
背景:处方药监测程序(PDMPs)跟踪患者高风险药物的处方记录,并在满足特定标准时向药剂师提示实时警报。医疗保健系统越来越多地实施PDMPs,以试图减轻处方阿片类药物相关的危害。目的:本研究旨在探讨和比较来自强制和非强制使用PDMP的州的澳大利亚社区药剂师的PDMP经验。方法:邀请新南威尔士州、昆士兰州、维多利亚州和西澳大利亚州的代表性社区药剂师完成一项匿名在线调查。该调查收集了药房和药剂师的相关信息,并要求药剂师以5分制对PDMP的有用性和障碍进行排名。采用曼-惠特尼U检验来确定强制和非强制州之间的得分是否有统计学上的显著差异。结果:共纳入药师690名。强制性州的药剂师在17个项目中有5个项目的平均“有用性”得分更高,例如为临床决策提供信息(p结论:强制性州和非强制性州之间药剂师的PDMP经验存在显著差异,考虑到澳大利亚最近对国家处方监测的投资,这可能具有政策意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
336
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Pharmacists Association is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), providing information on pharmaceutical care, drug therapy, diseases and other health issues, trends in pharmacy practice and therapeutics, informed opinion, and original research. JAPhA publishes original research, reviews, experiences, and opinion articles that link science to contemporary pharmacy practice to improve patient care.
期刊最新文献
Medication therapy management lifestyle and wellness program for patients in rural Arizona. American Pharmacists Association Foundation Incentive Grants: A 30-year descriptive review. An analysis of the impact of a multimodal therapy order set on postoperative opioid prescribing after orthopedic shoulder procedures. Pharmacy in 2050: To succeed, we must adapt Take care of the patient: Pharmacists should advocate for overdose prevention centers as harm reduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1