Literature Collection

OBJECTIVE: To develop effective pharmacy-based interventions to mitigate harm from opioid use disorders. Programs include responsible opioid prescribing, expanded access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT), naloxone, and community interventions. SETTING: Clinical pharmacists practicing at Indian Health Service (IHS) locations in the Southwest, Midwest, and Great Lakes regions. These pharmacists serve culturally diverse American Indian populations throughout the United States and interface with tribal and federal programs to impact the opioid epidemic in Indian Country. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Pharmacists have reduced barriers to care by expanding clinical practices to include novel approaches in pain management clinics and MAT programs. PRACTICE INNOVATION: As part of a multidisciplinary team, IHS pharmacists provide comprehensive patient care while focusing on the prevention of opioid dependence and opioid overdose death. EVALUATION: Pharmacists have also expanded professional competencies to include coprescribing naloxone and training first responders on naloxone use. RESULTS: Pharmacists within IHS have proactively completed advanced training on responsible opioid prescribing, augmented services to increase access to MAT for American Indians and Alaska Natives, and increased access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversal. Pharmacists have also developed a comprehensive training program and program measurement tools for law enforcement officers serving in tribal communities. These materials were used to train 350 officers in 6 districts and conduct a mass naloxone dispensing initiative across Indian Country. Pharmacists have consequently developed successful community coalitions that are focused on saving lives. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist involvement in key initiatives including responsible opioid prescribing, expanded access to MAT, and expanded access to naloxone for trained first responders, coupled with an emphasis on enhanced education, illustrates pharmacists' impact with the opioid epidemic.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone co-prescribing to individuals at increased opioid overdose risk is a key component of opioid overdose prevention efforts. OBJECTIVE: Examine naloxone co-prescribing in the general population and assess how co-prescribing varies by individual and community characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression of 2017-2018 de-identified pharmacy claims representing 90% of all prescriptions filled at retail pharmacies in 50 states and the District of Columbia. PATIENTS: Individuals with opioid analgesic treatment episodes > 90 days MAIN MEASURES: Outcome was co-prescribed naloxone. Predictor variables included insurance type, primary prescriber specialty, receipt of concomitant benzodiazepines, high-dose opioid episode, county urbanicity, fatal overdose rates, poverty rates, and primary care health professional shortage areas. KEY RESULTS: Naloxone co-prescribing occurred in 2.3% of long-term opioid therapy episodes. Medicaid (aOR 1.87, 95%CI 1.84 to 1.90) and Medicare (aOR 1.48, 95%CI 1.46 to 1.51) episodes had higher odds of naloxone co-prescribing than commercial insurance episodes, while cash pay (aOR 0.77, 95%CI 0.74 to 0.80) and other insurance episodes (aOR 0.81, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.83) had lower odds. Odds of naloxone co-prescribing were higher among high-dose opioid episodes (aOR 3.19, 95%CI 3.15 to 3.23), when concomitant benzodiazepines were prescribed (aOR 1.12, 95%CI 1.10 to 1.14), and in counties with higher fatal overdose rates. CONCLUSION: Co-prescription of naloxone represents a tangible clinical action that can be taken to help prevent opioid overdose deaths. However, despite recommendations to co-prescribe naloxone to patients at increased risk for opioid overdose, we found that co-prescribing rates remain low overall. States, insurers, and health systems should consider implementing strategies to facilitate increased co-prescribing of naloxone to at-risk individuals.

BACKGROUND: Since 2010 there has been a growing population of refugees and asylum seekers in Latin America. This study sought to investigate the perceived experiences and healthcare needs of refugees and asylum seekers of Latin American origin in Chile in order to identify main barriers to healthcare and provide guidance on allied challenges for the public healthcare system. METHODS: Descriptive qualitative case study with semi-structured interviews applied to refugees and asylum seekers (n = 8), healthcare workers (n = 4), and members of Non-Governmental Organizations and religious foundations focused on working with refugees and asylum seekers in Chile (n = 2). RESULTS: Although Chilean law guarantees access to all levels of healthcare for the international migrant population, the specific healthcare needs of refugees and asylum seekers were not adequately covered. Primary care and mental healthcare were the most required types of service for participants, yet they appeared to be the most difficult to access. Difficulties in social integration -including access to healthcare, housing, and education- upon arrival and lengthy waiting times for legal status of refugees also presented great barriers to effective healthcare provision and wellbeing. Healthcare workers and members of organizations indicated the need for more information about refugee and asylum-seeking populations, their rights and conditions, as well as more effective and tailored healthcare interventions for them, especially for emergency mental healthcare situations. CONCLUSIONS: All participants perceived that there was disinformation among institutional actors regarding the healthcare needs of refugees and asylum seekers in Chile. They also perceived that there were barriers to access to primary care and mental healthcare, which might lead to overuse of emergency services. This study highlights a sense of urgency to protect the social and healthcare needs of refugees and asylum seekers in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Stigma and high-care needs can present barriers to the provision of high-quality primary care for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and those prescribed opioids for chronic pain. We explored the likelihood of securing a new primary care provider (PCP) among people with varying histories of opioid use who had recently lost access to their PCP. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data among residents of Ontario, Canada whose enrolment with a physician practicing in a primary care enrolment model (PEM) was terminated between January 2016 and December 2017. We assigned individuals to 3 groups based upon their opioid use on the date enrolment ended: long-term opioid pain therapy (OPT), opioid agonist therapy (OAT), or no opioid. We fit multivariable models assessing the primary outcome of primary care reattachment within 1 year, adjusting for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, and health services utilization. Secondary outcomes included rates of emergency department (ED) visits and opioid toxicity events. Among 154,970 Ontarians who lost their PCP, 1,727 (1.1%) were OAT recipients, 3,644 (2.4%) were receiving long-term OPT, and 149,599 (96.5%) had no recent prescription opioid exposure. In general, OAT recipients were younger (median age 36) than those receiving long-term OPT (59 years) and those with no recent prescription opioid exposure (44 years). In all exposure groups, the majority of individuals had their enrolment terminated by their physician (range 78.1% to 88.8%). In the primary analysis, as compared to those not receiving opioids, OAT recipients were significantly less likely to find a PCP within 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50 to 0.61, p < 0.0001). We observed no significant difference between long-term OPT and opioid unexposed individuals (aHR 0.96; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01, p = 0.12). In our secondary analysis comparing the period of PCP loss to the year prior, we found that rates of ED visits were elevated among people not receiving opioids (adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 1.20, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.22, p < 0.0001) and people receiving long-term OPT (aRR 1.37, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.48, p < 0.0001). We found no such increase among OAT recipients, and no significant increase in opioid toxicity events in the period following provider loss for any exposure group. The main limitation of our findings relates to their generalizability outside of PEMs and in jurisdictions with different financial incentives incorporated into primary care provision. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed gaps in access to primary care among people who receive prescription opioids, particularly among OAT recipients. Ongoing efforts are needed to address the stigma, discrimination, and financial disincentives that may introduce barriers to the healthcare system, and to facilitate access to high-quality, consistent primary care services for chronic pain patients and those with OUD.

BACKGROUND: Strengthening capacity for mental health in primary care improves health outcomes by providing timely access to coordinated and integrated mental health care. The successful integration of mental health in primary care is highly dependent on the foundation of the surrounding policy context. In Ontario, Canada, policy reforms in the early 2000's led to the implementation of a new interprofessional team-model of primary care called Family Health Teams. It is unclear the extent to which the policy context in Ontario influenced the integration of mental health care in Family Health Teams emerging from this period of policy reform. The research question guiding this study was: what were key features of Ontario's policy context that influenced FHTs capacity to provide mental health services for mood and anxiety disorders? METHODS: A qualitative study informed by constructivist grounded theory. Individual interviews were conducted with executive directors, family physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, and the range of professionals who provide mental health services in interprofessional primary care teams; community mental health providers; and provincial policy and decision makers. We used an inductive approach to data analysis. The electronic data management programme NVivo11 helped organise the data analysis process. RESULTS: We conducted 96 interviews with 82 participants. With respect to the contextual factors considered to be important features of Ontario's policy context that influenced primary care teams' capacity to provide mental health services, we identified four key themes: i) lack of strategic direction for mental health, ii) inadequate resourcing for mental health care, iii) rivalry and envy, and, iv) variations across primary care models. CONCLUSIONS: As the first point of contact for individuals experiencing mental health difficulties, primary care plays an important role in addressing population mental health care needs. In Ontario, the successful integration of mental health in primary care has been hindered by the lack of strategic direction, and inconsistent resourcing for mental health care. Achieving health equity may be stunted by the structural variations for mental health care across Family Health Teams and across primary care models in Ontario.