Optimizing Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs to Support Law Enforcement Activities, United States, 2013-2014 (ICPSR 36043)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The purpose of this project was to characterize the PDMP features and practices (which vary by state) that are optimal for supporting law enforcement investigations and prosecutions of prescription drug diversion cases. The project was undertaken with the following four objectives:

1. Compare and contrast current enabling legislation, structural features and operational procedures for select PDMPs.
2. Analyze access to and utilization of PDMP reports for investigative and prosecutorial activities.
3. Analyze perceptions of law enforcement personnel regarding the impact of PDMP reports on investigative and prosecutorial activities.
4. Identify key features and best practices of PDMPs that are optimal for supporting investigative and prosecutorial activities of law enforcement personnel.

Study Design View help for Study Design

This project used a multi-pronged approach, employing both qualitative and quantitative methodology, to examine nine state PDMPs: Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Washington.

Three individual project components were conducted to accomplish the goal of this study:

• Project 1: Researchers conducted structured interviews with PDMP managers to document and compare current enabling legislation, structural features, and operational procedures for each state program. Additionally, data were collected regarding policies for law enforcement access to PDMP reports, sharing of PDMP data, the number of registered law enforcement users, frequency of law enforcement use (solicitation of reports) and frequency of unsolicited reports.
• Project 2: Researchers conducted a survey of law enforcement personnel registered with the state PDMP in all nine states to determine perceived utility of PDMP reports for investigations and prosecutions.
• Project 3: Focus groups of law enforcement personnel were conducted to further explore and confirm themes identified in the survey results.

The information gleaned from these three distinct approaches allowed researchers to compare and contrast findings across states to determine the PDMP program features and practices associated with the highest utility for investigative and prosecutorial activities.

Sample View help for Sample

Project 1: Nine state PDMPs were selected for examination. Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia were selected to provide a perspective in the Appalachian region, where the epidemic of prescription drug abuse is especially prevalent. Researchers also included Indiana because it is a regional border state to both Kentucky and Ohio and its PDMP has features that are distinct when compared to the Appalachian regional sample (e.g. Indiana's PDMP was originally housed in a law enforcement agency rather than a healthcare-associated agency). Five additional states - Massachusetts, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Washington - were selected for analysis to provide a national perspective. These five states were selected because each one offered a distinct feature. For example, Oklahoma is the only state that requires near real-time reporting of controlled substance prescription data to the PDMP. In contrast, Nevada was selected because of its long-standing policy of generating unsolicited reports. Massachusetts was chosen because it offers online access to patients' controlled substance prescription histories, directly accessed by the registered user and does not require the requesting of a report that is returned to the user via electronic means. Finally, New Mexico and Washington were chosen because they had unique features, such as Washington's global positioning system (GPS) mapping technology integrated into the PDMP.

Project 2: Law enforcement personnel registered with the state PDMP in all nine states were surveyed to determine the perceived utility of PDMP reports for investigations and prosecutions.

Project 3: Focus group participants were recruited from annual state narcotics officers' association meetings (Indiana Drug Enforcement Association, Kentucky Narcotics Officers Association, Ohio Narcotics Association of Regional Coordinating Officers, and the West Virginia Narcotics Officers Association).

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) in the United States.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Project 1: Interviews with PDMP Managers

PDMP program dimensions assessed included:

• Date of enabling legislation
• Date of program implementation
• Housing agency
• Schedules monitored
• Frequency of data collection from pharmacies and other drug dispensers
• Quality of data received
• Security of data
• Reporting policies (solicited vs. unsolicited)
• Access policies (who/how)
• Sharing of data among states
• Content/format of reports
• Utilization by law enforcement - number of registered users, number of solicited reports (requests) provided, number of unsolicited reports provided

Project 2: OptimizingPDMPsToSup_DATA_NOHDRS_2015-01-29_1235.csv (n=1,834; 204 variables)

Survey items addressed the following:

• Data quality
• Data currency (freshness)
• Reporting format
• Ease of access
• Ability to share data within and across states
• Usefulness in achieving short-term objectives (case building)
• Usefulness in achieving long-term objectives (case disposition)
• Usefulness of PDMP reports from other states compared to home state
• Suggestions for improvement of PDMP reports and policies

Project 3: Focus Groups of Law Enforcement Users

Questions posed to the focus group members included:

Introduction

1. In general, when do you use the PDMP? (a) How many requests have you made in the past 6 months? (b) What training have you received on how to use PDMP?
2. Describe the process for accessing a PDMP report for your work. (a) How easy/difficult is it to obtain a report? (b) Are there restrictions on access or use of the PDMP reports? (c) How do the PDMP reports impact your investigations? (d) Are reports equally useful for investigations of patients and healthcare professionals?

General Pros/Cons of Reports and Access

1. Describe the most helpful aspect of PDMP reports for your work. (a) Is there one feature that is particularly helpful? (b) Do you utilize an Excel feature of the PDMP that allows reports to be sorted or otherwise manipulated? What do you think are advantages and disadvantages to this feature?
2. Describe the most cumbersome/clunky aspect of PDMP reports for your work. (a) Is there one feature that is particularly problematic?
3. How would you rate the quality of the data in the PDMP reports? (a) Do you find the data to be current? Complete? Accurate?

Other Prescription Drug Monitoring Report Features/Capabilities

1. Have you ever utilized a PDMP report from another state? (a) If so, describe the similarities and differences between that state's report and the PDMP report from your state.
2. What information would you like to see added to PDMP? (a) Some states have added a GPS feature to their PDMP reports. What do you think are advantages and disadvantages to this feature?

Areas for Improvement

1. What suggestions do you have to improve PDMP?

Program Funding

1. There are costs associated with all state government programs and sustainability of programs is always a concern. (a) Regarding PDMP, do you know where the funding comes from? (b) Where do you think the funding should come from to ensure sustainability?

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Project 2 Survey Response Rate by State (OptimizingPDMPsToSup_DATA_NOHDRS_2015-01-29_1235.csv): Indiana 19.3%, Kentucky 27.3%, Massachusetts 25.7%, Nevada 57.1%, New Mexico 16.7%, Ohio 20.5%, Oklahoma 14.1%, Washington 37.0%, and West Virginia 72.0%.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Several Likert-type scales were used.

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2018-07-19

Hide

Weight View help for Weight

None.

Hide