BackgroundAs the burden from the opioid epidemic continues to increase in the state of Minnesota and across the nation, the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy seeks to design an innovative, comprehensive harm reduction curriculum in order to better train student pharmacists to serve the varied needs of the greater community. This study examines incoming individuals’ baseline knowledge of and attitudes toward harm reduction in order to better inform curriculum planning and to ultimately produce pharmacists capable of impacting the devastating effects of the opioid crisis.MethodsIncoming first-year pharmacy students took a survey focused on their knowledge of opioid overdose and the drug naloxone and also provided written reflections on their perceptions of harm reduction. Data was coded using consensual qualitative research (CQR) into appropriate domains.ResultsPharmacy students beginning their professional education revealed a lack of knowledge of proper response to an overdose situation, with 18.56% unfamiliar with the opioid antagonist drug naloxone. Close to 10% (9.58%) of students expressed unwillingness to do anything other than call an ambulance during an overdose event, while 8.98% were either unsure or felt that they would not feel compelled to do something to help. Qualitative coding revealed many barriers to students’ becoming capable harm reductionists, including lack of knowledge of substance use, addiction, and harm reduction, in addition to the presence of bias and stigma.ConclusionIn order to interrupt the cycle of misinformation and stigma within the larger community and the subgroup of medical providers, gaps in student knowledge must be addressed in meaningful, specific ways over the course of their pharmacy education. Evaluating baseline knowledge and beliefs informs the design of a flexible, action-oriented curriculum to produce well-trained pharmacists ready to engage in finding solutions to the opioid crisis.

Background: As opioid overdose deaths climb, legislation supporting pharmacists in developing their role to address the crisis has expanded. Although Minnesota pharmacists are encouraged to utilize opiate antagonist, syringe access and authorized collector legislation, the use patterns of these tools are unknown. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used to survey 8405 Minnesota-licensed pharmacists on their practices related to the opioid crisis. An analysis of community pharmacist utilization of opioid-related legislation was conducted. Results: The majority (88.64%) of respondents indicated that they had not dispensed naloxone in the past month using a protocol; 59.69% reported that they had not dispensed naloxone by any method in the past month. Over sixty percent (60.61%) of respondents agreed they are comfortable with dispensing syringes and would dispense noninsulin syringes in their pharmacy under the statewide Syringe Access Initiative; 25.86% reported that they are not comfortable dispensing syringes. The majority (78.64%) of respondents reported that they do not participate in collecting unwanted pharmaceuticals. Conclusion: While pharmacists have the potential to play a key role in efforts focused on addressing the opioid crisis through harm reduction strategies, this role and the use of supporting legislation is currently underutilized in the state of Minnesota.

This study evaluated perceived effectiveness of an interprofessional case-based activity that allowed medical and pharmacy students to engage in problem-solving around the role of social determinants of health (SDOH) in opioid misuse. Students participated in a case-based activity, and then completed a post-activity survey that included five open-ended questions and the Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey. Twelve pharmacy students (100%) and 47 medical students (75%) completed the post-activity survey. Results indicate the activity resulted in a statistically significant increase in student ability to: 1) recognize interprofessional team members' knowledge, skills, and contributions to the interprofessional team; 2) communicate effectively across professions; and 3) learn with, from, and about interprofessional team members to develop a patient care plan. Students also reported enhanced understanding of treatment considerations with opioid misuse, the role of SDOH, and recognition of the value of interprofessional collaboration in their future practice. This interprofessional case-based activity appeared to promote collaboration among students from different professional programs as they engaged in problem-solving around a contemporary public health issue that intersects their future practices. This activity may serve as a model for health professional programs, practitioners, healthcare systems, and communities that seek interprofessional solutions to combat opioid misuse.

Introduction Although the opioid crisis has been acknowledged as a public health emergency that requires collaboration and engagement from pharmacists, the perceptions of pharmacists on their role in harm reduction strategies and their views on opioid use have not been well established. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to understand Minnesota pharmacists' attitudes about the profession's role in the opioid crisis, including perceptions on the pharmacist's public health and clinical roles within the crisis, views on the dispensing of naloxone, and attitudes toward harm reduction strategies including syringe access. Methods This was a mixed‐method study that utilized an anonymous email survey containing Likert‐type responses which were quantitatively analyzed, as well as open comment boxes evaluated using Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR) methods. Pharmacists with a Minnesota license from all practice settings were invited to participate in the survey. Results While the majority of participating pharmacists acknowledged a need within their communities to address the opioid epidemic agreeing that the profession should have a role in the community response, including provision of patient education and naloxone distribution, a small number of pharmacists believed that either the epidemic was not pertinent to their practice or pharmacy as a profession should not be involved. Concerns regarding naloxone included lack of support from other health professionals, time constraints in practice, and safety and liability concerns with naloxone. Conclusion Considerable opportunity for increased pharmacist education on both opioid use disorder and the role of the pharmacist in harm reduction initiatives exists. Pharmacists from a wide variety of clinical practice settings have appreciable potential to influence the opioid crisis by embracing their clinical and public health roles.

No abstract