Adherence to drug-dispensation and drug-administration laws and guidelines in collegiate athletic training rooms: a 5-year review.
BACKGROUND
To both ensure athletes' safety and avoid legal penalties, athletic trainers' (ATs') handling of medications in the athletic training room should conform with federal and state statutes.


OBJECTIVE
To revisit drug dispensation and administration in collegiate athletic training rooms 5 years after the initial study.


METHODS
Survey study.


METHODS
College and university athletic training rooms.


METHODS
All 4627 certified ATs employed in National Collegiate Athletic Association Divisions I, II, and III and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics institutions, as listed by the National Athletic Trainers' Association, were surveyed.


METHODS
The survey was created for the 2001 study based on federal laws. We used analyses of variance to study compliance by division (I, II, or III) and sex and by sex and employment status (head or assistant AT).


RESULTS
A total of 2330 ATs (N = 4627, 50%) provided 1535 usable responses. For comparison with the 2001 data, only head ATs' responses were included (n = 670). In general, drug distribution compliance scores among head ATs were low (mean = 6.37 +/- 0.15, range = 0-25 points). The ATs were less compliant when handling over-the-counter (OTC) medications. Only 55.5% of ATs stored medications in a locked cabinet, compared with 67.1% in 2001. A large number of ATs administered OTC drugs in any amount necessary (n = 689, 44%), and 3.6% (n = 55) allowed athletes access without any consultation, compared with 53.8% and 4.9%, respectively, in 2001. However, prescription medication practices improved since the first study. Also, we noted a main effect of employment status (F(1,934) = 5.57, P < .05): head ATs were less compliant than assistant ATs.


CONCLUSIONS
Compared with 5 years ago, ATs appear to be more compliant with federal statutes regarding prescription drug regulation. A thorough understanding of appropriate OTC medication administration practices still appears to be lacking.
Kahanov
Leamor
L
San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, USA. Leamor.kahanov@indstate.edu
Roberts
Jeff
J
Wughalter
Emily M
EM
D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002140:California; D003157:Community Pharmacy Services / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004333:Drug Administration Routes; D005260:Female; D033161:Government Regulation; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D004366:Nonprescription Drugs; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D055553:Prescription Drugs; D013178:Sports Medicine / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D013997:Time Factors; D014481:United States
D004366:Nonprescription Drugs; D055553:Prescription Drugs
J Athl Train. 2003 Sep;38(3):252-258
14608436
J Athl Train. 2000 Apr;35(2):179-87
16558628
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1995 Feb 1;52(3):302-9
7749959
Clin Sports Med. 1998 Apr;17(2):211-28
9580838