Introduction: Burnout is defined as high emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment from work. Prevalence of burnout among health‐system and ambulatory care pharmacists is unknown during the COVID‐19 pandemic.Objectives: The purpose of this research is to analyze burnout prevalence among health‐system pharmacists (HSPs) and ambulatory care pharmacists (ACPs) using the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory and Maslach Burnout Inventory.Methods: An electronic survey was sent to HSPs at two academic health systems in Chicago, IL. Demographics, risk of burnout based on two validated assessments (the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory [OLBI] and the Maslach Burnout Inventory [MBI]), burnout contributors, burnout mitigation strategies, and change in burnout due to COVID‐19 were collected. Burnout was defined as meeting any one criterion for high burnout on the following dimensions: exhaustion score and disengagement on the OLBI, and emotional exhaustion and depersonalization on the MBI. The co‐primary outcomes were the prevalence of burnout among HSPs, and the comparison of ACP burnout to that of non‐ambulatory HSPs. Secondary outcomes were comparison of burnout between the OLBI and MBI assessments, conceptualization of the causes and contributors of burnout and mitigation strategies among HSPs, and the self‐perceived effect of COVID‐19 on burnout severity.Results: Of the 113 pharmacists included in the study, HSP burnout prevalence as defined above was 87.6%, ACP burnout was 88.4%, and non‐ambulatory HSP burnout was 87.1%. There was no statistical difference between ACP and non‐ambulatory HSP burnout prevalence, either overall or in any specific burnout dimension. The OLBI and MBI captured similar rates of burnout. The commonly reported burnout causes were staffing and scheduling issues, precepting requirements, and patient needs. Participants' most reported coping strategies were spending time with family/friends, sleep, exercise, and recreational/relaxation activities. A majority of HSPs (78.2%) reported higher levels of burnout due to COVID‐19.Conclusion: HSP burnout during COVID‐19 pandemic is higher than cited in the pre‐COVID literature. Individual coping strategies are poor buffers for work‐related burnout.

The SAFE-Home Opioid Management Education (SAFE-HOME) Naloxone Awareness pilot program utilized home health workers (HHWs) in rural settings to educate older adults prescribed opioids on naloxone access and use. This work expands the SAFE-HOME program to urban settings to prepare HHWs to educate community-dwelling older adults on opioid risks and life-saving naloxone. This prospective, interventional cohort study evaluated 60-min synchronous, virtual HHW educational training sessions describing opioid risks in older adults, opioid overdose signs and symptoms, and naloxone access and use. Knowledge assessments were conducted pre- and post-intervention via a pre-developed assessment tool in a repeated measure model. Outcomes included change in total opioid and naloxone knowledge, and baseline total and individual opioid and naloxone knowledge. Six educational sessions were held (n = 154). The average pre- and post-education scores were 62.7% (n = 108) and 83.5% (n = 82), respectively (p < 0.001). Of the 69 participants who completed both pre- and post-education assessments, the average change in total score was +19.6% (p < 0.001), opioid knowledge score −0.4% (p = 0.901), and naloxone knowledge score +32.9% (p < 0.001). At baseline, HHWs were knowledgeable on opioid risks, but lacked familiarity with naloxone access and use. Targeting HHWs with opioid and naloxone training positions them to effectively educate at-risk community-dwelling older adults.

Academic detailing (AD) is a unique educational resource that provides evidence-based decision-making tools for health care clinicians and is commonly done by pharmacists. Implementation of an AD program requires intentional planning, evaluation, and adaptation. This brief report aimed to describe the creation of a pharmacist-led AD program, Illinois ADVANCE (Academic Detailing Visits and New Evidence Center, or ILA), and lessons learned from the process, framed through the 4 phases of the quality implementation framework (QIF), to inform future AD program development. ILA program implementation is described using the 4 phases of QIF: initial considerations regarding the host setting, creating a structure for implementation, ongoing structure once implementation begins, and improving future applications. The clinical pharmacists of ILA had expertise in providing AD and clinician outreach, making it an ideal fit for an AD program. Additional staff were hired, and all were trained on AD knowledge and skills. An initial structure was created based on best practices in the AD space. Through staff experience and feedback, the structure was adapted and future applications improved with the development of teams and the clarity of roles. This brief report describes the implementation and adaptation of a pharmacist-led AD program, ILA, through the QIF framework. ILA's current structure resulted from several sources of feedback, primarily from staff input and experiences. Ultimately, this work serves as a guide for future AD program implementation.