Prescription drug monitoring program in Australia: a qualitative study of stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of a state-wide implementation.
Clinical decision support
Digital health
Implementation
Prescription drug monitoring programs
Prescription drugs
Primary care
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Sep 2024
29 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
26
05
2024
accepted:
19
09
2024
medline:
30
9
2024
pubmed:
30
9
2024
entrez:
29
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are increasingly implemented across the globe with aims of managing and mitigating risks relating to high-risk prescription medicines. There is limited research focused on identifying strategies or processes for large-scale PDMP implementation. This study aimed to identify strategies perceived as necessary for successful state-wide implementation of a PDMP by exploring the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders responsible for the implementation in New South Wales (NSW), Australia: to identify (1) the drivers of implementation; (2) perceived strategies that worked well; (3) barriers to implementation; and (4) the elements needed for long-term success of SafeScript NSW. This study used a qualitative descriptive design. Theoretical frameworks used to design interview questions and guide thematic analysis were the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework and Quadruple Aim framework. Participants were stakeholders responsible for PDMP implementation in NSW. Recruitment and data collection were completed between March and April 2022. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers independently reviewed transcripts, generated codes from the data, and mapped these to each NASSS domain. They came together multiple times during data analysis to review the codes and grouped them into higher level themes via a discussion and consensus process. Themes were then organised according to the four objectives of the study. Eight interviews were conducted and analysed after which thematic saturation was reached. All participants had a common understanding of the perceived benefits and drivers for PDMP implementation. Participants outlined ten key ingredients for perceived successful state-wide implementation. Strong and iterative engagement with a large number of stakeholder groups was viewed as critical, as was targeting user experience, ongoing monitoring and evaluation. These were facilitated by a phased roll-out strategy. Participants identified some barriers to implementation, particularly around poor usability and user experience of the tool. This is one of the first studies focused on strategies for what was perceived to be successful state-wide implementation of PDMP. Successful implementation requires significant time and resourcing, with the design and configuration of the technology being only one component of a multi-strategy process. Knowledge and insights gained from this study may be useful for other implementations of similar digital health tools in large-scale jurisdictions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are increasingly implemented across the globe with aims of managing and mitigating risks relating to high-risk prescription medicines. There is limited research focused on identifying strategies or processes for large-scale PDMP implementation. This study aimed to identify strategies perceived as necessary for successful state-wide implementation of a PDMP by exploring the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders responsible for the implementation in New South Wales (NSW), Australia: to identify (1) the drivers of implementation; (2) perceived strategies that worked well; (3) barriers to implementation; and (4) the elements needed for long-term success of SafeScript NSW.
METHODS
METHODS
This study used a qualitative descriptive design. Theoretical frameworks used to design interview questions and guide thematic analysis were the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework and Quadruple Aim framework. Participants were stakeholders responsible for PDMP implementation in NSW. Recruitment and data collection were completed between March and April 2022. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers independently reviewed transcripts, generated codes from the data, and mapped these to each NASSS domain. They came together multiple times during data analysis to review the codes and grouped them into higher level themes via a discussion and consensus process. Themes were then organised according to the four objectives of the study.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eight interviews were conducted and analysed after which thematic saturation was reached. All participants had a common understanding of the perceived benefits and drivers for PDMP implementation. Participants outlined ten key ingredients for perceived successful state-wide implementation. Strong and iterative engagement with a large number of stakeholder groups was viewed as critical, as was targeting user experience, ongoing monitoring and evaluation. These were facilitated by a phased roll-out strategy. Participants identified some barriers to implementation, particularly around poor usability and user experience of the tool.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This is one of the first studies focused on strategies for what was perceived to be successful state-wide implementation of PDMP. Successful implementation requires significant time and resourcing, with the design and configuration of the technology being only one component of a multi-strategy process. Knowledge and insights gained from this study may be useful for other implementations of similar digital health tools in large-scale jurisdictions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39343889
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11614-8
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-11614-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1147Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : 2022380
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Carey CM, Jena AB, Barnett ML. Patterns of potential opioid misuse and subsequent adverse outcomes in Medicare, 2008 to 2012. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(12):837–45.
doi: 10.7326/M17-3065
pubmed: 29800019
Fiellin LE, Fiellin DA. Toward Better Stewardship: gaining Control over controlled substances. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(12):883–4.
doi: 10.7326/M18-1146
pubmed: 29799985
Tay E, Makeham M, Laba T-L, Baysari M. Prescription drug Monitoring Programs evaluation: a systematic review of reviews. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2023;247:109887.
Al-Astal AY, Sodhi K, Lakhani HV. Optimization of prescription drug monitoring program to overcome opioid epidemic in West Virginia. Cureus. 2022;14(2):e22434.
pubmed: 35371719
pmcid: 8941824
Elder JW, DePalma G, Pines JM. Optimal implementation of prescription drug Monitoring Programs in the Emergency Department. West J Emerg Med. 2018;19(2):387–91.
doi: 10.5811/westjem.2017.12.35957
pubmed: 29560070
pmcid: 5851515
Stone EM, Rutkow L, Bicket MC, Barry CL, Alexander GC, McGinty EE. Implementation and enforcement of state opioid prescribing laws. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;213:108107.
doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108107
pubmed: 32554171
pmcid: 7371528
NSW Health. SafeScript NSW [20/07/2024]. Available from: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/safescript .
Greenhalgh T, Maylor H, Shaw S, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Betton V, et al. The NASSS-CAT tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and Researching Technology Implementation Projects in Health and Social Care: protocol for an evaluation study in real-world settings. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020;9(5):e16861.
doi: 10.2196/16861
pubmed: 32401224
pmcid: 7254278
Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573–6.
doi: 10.1370/afm.1713
pubmed: 25384822
pmcid: 4226781
Xu W, Zammit K. Applying thematic analysis to education: a Hybrid Approach to Interpreting Data in Practitioner Research. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19:1609406920918810.
doi: 10.1177/1609406920918810
van Leeuwen D, Mittelman M, Fabian L, Lomotan EA. Nothing for me or about me, without me: Codesign of clinical decision support. Appl Clin Inf. 2022;13(3):641–6.
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1750355
Day RO, Roffe DJ, Richardson KL, Baysari MT, Brennan NJ, Beveridge S, et al. Implementing electronic medication management at an Australian teaching hospital. Med J Aust. 2011;195(9):498–502.
doi: 10.5694/mja11.10451
pubmed: 22060071
Owens K. EMR implementation: big bang or a phased approach? J Med Pract Manage. 2008;23(5):279–81.
pubmed: 18472602
World Health Organization. Monitoring and evaluating digital health interventions: a practical guide to conducting research and assessment. 2016.
Kolasa K, Kozinski G. How to value digital health interventions? A systematic literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(6):2119.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062119
pubmed: 32209988
pmcid: 7143608
Murray E, Hekler EB, Andersson G, Collins LM, Doherty A, Hollis C, et al. Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions and approaches. Elsevier; 2016. pp. 843–51.
Cresswell K, Anderson S, Elizondo AM, Williams R. Opportunities and challenges of promoting integrated care through digitalisation–learning lessons from large-scale national programmes in England. Health Policy Technol. 2024;13(2):100838.
Adjekum A, Blasimme A, Vayena E. Elements of trust in digital health systems: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(12):e11254.
doi: 10.2196/11254
pubmed: 30545807
pmcid: 6315261
Baysari MT, Van Dort BA, Stanceski K, Hargreaves A, Zheng WY, Moran M, Day R, Li L, Westbrook J, Hilmer S. Is evidence of effectiveness a driver for clinical decision support selection? A qualitative descriptive study of senior hospital staff. Int J Qual Health Care. 2023;35(1):mzad004. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzad004 .
Dickson-Gomez J, Christenson E, Weeks M, Galletly C, Wogen J, Spector A, et al. Effects of implementation and Enforcement Differences in Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in 3 states: Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. Subst Abuse. 2021;15:1178221821992349.
pubmed: 33854323
pmcid: 8013627
Nielsen S, Picco L, Russell G, Pearce C, Andrew NE, Lubman DI, et al. Changes in opioid and other analgesic prescribing following voluntary and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program implementation: a time series analysis of early outcomes. Int J Drug Policy. 2023;117:104053.
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104053
pubmed: 37209441