· Executive Brief
National Prescription Drug Take Back Day, October 24, 2026
An executive-guidance framework for access, qualified response, handoffs, escalation, and learning.
Leadership signal
National Prescription Drug Take Back Day can serve as an executive operating checkpoint.
Awareness activity should not create an unsupported promise of service. Leaders can align public communication with actual entry points, qualified response capacity, emergency procedures, transition ownership, and a clear method for escalating unresolved needs.
Start by distinguishing what is known from what the organization still needs to learn. A campaign plan, communication volume, or meeting count does not establish that a route is usable. Leaders need direct listening, clear ownership, locally defined measures, and a method for keeping exceptions visible.
Executive opening
Take Back Day tests the whole medication pathway, not one collection event
National Prescription Drug Take Back Day draws public attention to medicine cabinets once each fall. For a health system, the more useful question is operational. Where do unused opioids come from, and does each patient have a usable way to remove them from the home? The research reviewed here addresses both ends of that pathway. It also shows that the two ends are managed by different people, in different settings, on different timelines.
Prescribing volume is concentrated in a small set of procedures. Among about 1.04 million surgical procedures in U.S. adults aged 18 to 64 in 2020 and 2021, 48.3% had an opioid dispensed after discharge.[10] Cesarean delivery accounted for 19.4% of dispensed morphine milligram equivalents in adults aged 18 to 44.[10] In adults aged 45 to 64, knee arthroplasty led at 9.7%, and four of the top five procedures were orthopedic.[10] The authors concluded that surgical opioid stewardship should target procedures such as childbirth and orthopedic surgery.[10] That concentration gives leaders a manageable place to start.
Disposal is the weaker half of the pathway. In a Michigan statewide survey of 702 adults, 29.8% reported attending a drug take-back event.[15] Only 8.4% of the same respondents reported always keeping opioids locked.[15] A randomized trial of 127 shoulder arthroplasty patients paired preoperative education with a prepaid, preaddressed envelope for opioid disposal.[8] Whether removing the separate trip changes behavior is the design question that trial tested.
This section adds that evidence to the operating guidance above. It treats the observance as a checkpoint for three linked systems: right-sized prescribing at discharge, a disposal route people can actually reach, and pharmacy and community partners who close the loop. Each one can be measured, owned and improved well beyond a single Saturday in October.
Current evidence
What the research says about leftover opioids and disposal
Excess supply often begins with the discharge prescription. In a recent analysis of 1136 laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients, a prediction-based, patient-centered prescribing strategy outperformed both default strategies across a threshold range of 0.18 to 0.91.[3] The approach ties the prescription to predicted need rather than to a fixed default. For leaders, it suggests that discharge quantity can be governed by a patient-level rule rather than habit. A prediction-based rule also gives pharmacists and nurses a shared reference point when a patient or family asks why the quantity is smaller than expected.
Leftover tablets matter partly because a minority of patients continue opioids long after surgery. In Austria, a national cohort included 559,096 adults who had 642,857 surgical procedures from 2016 through 2021.[7] New persistent opioid use followed 1.7% of procedures, ranging from 0.3% after appendectomy to 6.8% after spinal surgery.[7] Spinal surgery carried an odds ratio of 5.36 and arthroplasty an odds ratio of 1.57.[7] The frequency of previously filled opioid prescriptions carried an odds ratio of 16.49.[7] The authors noted that this incidence was lower than in North America, so the figures describe risk patterns rather than U.S. rates.[7]
Disposal practice lags well behind stated attitudes. In an online survey of 402 adults in Palestine, 77.4% discarded expired medications in household garbage and 9.7% returned them to pharmacies.[1] At the same time, 93% supported professional guidance and public awareness efforts.[1] The authors concluded that structural barriers, rather than risk awareness alone, sustain unsafe disposal.[1]
Putting a disposal tool directly in people’s hands is feasible. At a three-day community event, 116 of 170 people approached accepted at least one drug deactivation pouch, a 68.2% acceptance rate.[11] In a second wave led by community health workers, all 124 people approached accepted a pouch, and overall acceptance was 81.6%.[11] Most recipients still disposed of medications through other methods, so acceptance is not the same as use.[11]
Across these studies, the pattern is consistent. Discharge prescriptions often exceed need, disposal is uncommon, and neither information nor a mailed disposal tool reliably changed behavior on its own. Most of the evidence comes from surgical pathways, single sites or self-report, which limits how far any one figure travels. Less is known about dental, emergency and primary care prescribing, or about disposal among older adults managing many medications. Local data will often have to fill those gaps.
Figure 1
Few people store or dispose of leftover medication safely
Percent of respondents reporting each storage or disposal practice, as reported in each survey. Values are copied from the cited studies [1], [15]; none is estimated.
Data note. The bars come from two surveys in different countries and years, so this is an indirect comparison across surveys; bars from the same survey may be read together.
Limitation. All four values are self-reported from online convenience samples; the Palestinian survey describes expired medications in general and the Michigan survey describes prescription opioids.
Figure data (4 rows)
| Measure | Value | Population, setting and year as reported | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Returned expired medications to a pharmacy | 9.7% | 9.7% of 402 non-health care Palestinian adults, online survey | [1] |
| Discarded expired medications in household garbage | 77.4% | 77.4% of the same 402 Palestinian adults, in a setting without formal take-back programs | [1] |
| Ever attended a drug take-back event | 29.8% | 29.8% (n = 209) of 702 Michigan adults, online statewide survey, July and August 2018 | [15] |
| Always kept prescription opioids locked | 8.4% | 8.4% (n = 59) of the same 702 Michigan adults | [15] |
Continuum of care
Where the continuum breaks between prescription and disposal
The disposal problem is created upstream. Every tablet prescribed beyond need becomes part of a home supply the health system no longer controls. The control points that matter most sit inside the organization: the default order, the quantity limit and the discharge conversation. Take-back programs then absorb whatever those control points fail to prevent. Reducing the volume that reaches the home is usually cheaper and more reliable than collecting it later.
Defaults can change the starting quantity dramatically. At a tertiary referral center, opioid-naive patients having major urologic cancer surgery were sorted into three groups.[12] Discharge opioid prescribing was 80.9% in the usual-care group, 57.9% in a reduced-opioid lead-in group and 2.2% under a no-opioid protocol.[12] The median number of tablets prescribed per patient was 14, 4 and 0 in the same groups.[12] The authors reported no adverse effect on pain control, complications or recovery.[12]
Department-wide stewardship has also been studied. In one departmental program spanning all perioperative phases, average discharge prescription size fell by 67.1% among 6,619 adults across 15 elective procedures.[4] Programs that span every perioperative phase reach patients at each point where a prescription is written, before any leftover supply reaches the home. Leaders can ask whether their own program covers every hospital and outpatient surgery site, not only the flagship campus. Coverage gaps between sites often explain why system averages improve while some patients still go home with large supplies.
The disposal step happens days later, at home, after the clinical team has moved on. In the trial that gave patients a prepaid disposal envelope, disposal rates did not differ significantly from controls (37% vs. 31%).[8] That design moved the tool to where leftover tablets sit, yet most patients still did not dispose of them. A home-delivered option does not depend on a separate trip to a pharmacy or an event.
The practical implication is ownership after discharge. An instruction on a discharge summary is a handoff to the patient with no receiving owner. Leaders can treat disposal as a follow-through step with a trigger, a timing window and a confirmation signal, in the same way they treat other post-discharge tasks. The discharging service, the pharmacy and the outreach team each hold part of that step. Naming which of them confirms completion is what turns a reminder into a closed loop.
Figure 3
Why the pathway breaks
People
- Pharmacists counsel on disposal only when asked
- Prescribers lack routine feedback on quantities
- Patients rarely ask about disposal
Process
- Default discharge quantities exceed expected use
- Disposal left as a discharge instruction with no owner
- No confirmation that disposal occurred
Technology
- Order sets without procedure-specific limits
- No text or portal follow-up after discharge
- Patient-reported consumption not fed back to prescribers
Environment
- Pharmacy deserts and sole-source rural pharmacies
- Disposal requires a separate trip
- Events hosted only by law enforcement
Policy
- Limited incentives for pharmacy preventive services
- Financial fragility of sole-source pharmacies
- Disposal products not routinely supplied
Measurement
- Refills and leftovers not tracked after discharge
- Disposal measures not stratified by population
- Acceptance of tools counted as use
Unranked qualitative cause-and-effect diagram for the outcome in the box: Unused opioids remain in homes after discharge because prescribing exceeds need and no reachable disposal route is owned Causes are assembled from the cited literature [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [8], [9], [11], [15]; categories are not weighted and their order carries no meaning.
Data note. Qualitative; no frequencies are implied.
Limitation. Causes drawn from published studies may not all apply locally; validate them with frontline teams.
Figure data (6 rows)
| Category | Causes drawn from the cited literature |
|---|---|
| People | Pharmacists counsel on disposal only when asked; Prescribers lack routine feedback on quantities; Patients rarely ask about disposal |
| Process | Default discharge quantities exceed expected use; Disposal left as a discharge instruction with no owner; No confirmation that disposal occurred |
| Technology | Order sets without procedure-specific limits; No text or portal follow-up after discharge; Patient-reported consumption not fed back to prescribers |
| Environment | Pharmacy deserts and sole-source rural pharmacies; Disposal requires a separate trip; Events hosted only by law enforcement |
| Policy | Limited incentives for pharmacy preventive services; Financial fragility of sole-source pharmacies; Disposal products not routinely supplied |
| Measurement | Refills and leftovers not tracked after discharge; Disposal measures not stratified by population; Acceptance of tools counted as use |
Access
Making disposal reachable where people live
Take-back depends on a physical place, and pharmacies are the most common one. Pharmacy access, however, is uneven. In a national analysis of the contiguous United States using February 2024 pharmacy data, 57.1 million people (17.7%) lived in pharmacy deserts.[6] Another 28.9 million people (8.9%) relied on a single pharmacy for access.[6] The study population covered 321.3 million people.[6] Those figures describe dispensing access, not disposal sites, but the two tend to share the same storefronts.
The dependence is sharpest in small rural areas, where 4.1 million people (14.3%) relied on a single pharmacy.[6] The authors recommended targeted reimbursement or other financial incentives to keep these sole-source pharmacies viable.[6] For a health system, a sole-source pharmacy is often also the only nearby disposal partner, which makes its stability a disposal issue.
Health care facilities can host the route themselves. In southwest tribal communities, 4,684 pounds of medication were collected and disposed of through health care facility drop boxes.[14] The same initiative distributed 215 drug deactivation bags to 162 households.[14] Those bags were used to destroy 8,011 pills, 8 medicated dermal patches and 777 mL of liquid medication.[14] The authors described the strategies as scalable and easy to replicate.[14] For hospitals and clinics, the lesson is that the organization’s own lobbies, outpatient pharmacies and clinic waiting areas can serve as year-round collection points. Placement, staffing and opening hours determine whether those points are used.
Event design also shapes access. The Michigan survey authors suggested that take-back events not hosted by law enforcement may have broader appeal.[15] They also suggested wider use of drug donation boxes.[15] Both ideas point to the same principle: the route should fit the setting people already use and trust. A single annual event, however well run, cannot serve someone whose leftover tablets appear in March.
A practical access review maps every disposal option in each service area. That includes on-site kiosks, partner pharmacies, scheduled events and mailed or in-hand deactivation products. Each option can then be tested against distance, hours, language and the need for a separate trip. Where no option passes that test, the gap becomes a partnership decision for the executive team rather than a messaging problem for the observance.
Executive guidance · System route
Build one visible operating route for National Prescription Drug Take Back Day.
Use this route as a discussion framework. Replace each stage with the organization’s approved process, qualified roles, current service capacity, and applicable requirements. Do not infer a clinical protocol from the observance title.
The route at a glance
- Make access clear
- Protect privacy
- Protect respectful continuity
- Hold the transition
- Learn without stigma
Reliability rule: Every stage needs a named owner, an observable status, an approved escalation path, and a defined signal that shows whether responsibility moved or remained unresolved.
Make access clear
Use respectful, plain-language instructions that identify approved contact options and what a person can expect next.
Protect privacy
Review channels, spaces, documentation, and role access against organizational policy and applicable requirements.
Protect respectful continuity
Align clear access, privacy, qualified response, approved escalation, and transition ownership without making assumptions about any person.
Hold the transition
Confirm acceptance when responsibility moves, and use approved escalation when the next owner is unavailable.
Learn without stigma
Review delays, drop-offs, repeat contacts, and experience feedback to improve the system rather than judge the person.
Figure 2
The system route as one flow
The five stages of the system route described in this brief, drawn as one flow with a learning loop back to the start. The stages are the page’s original executive guidance, not a clinical protocol.
Data note. Shows sequence and handoffs only; it carries no counts or rates.
Limitation. Local processes may add, merge or reorder stages under organizational policy.
Figure data (5 rows)
| Stage | What the stage requires |
|---|---|
| Make access clear | Use respectful, plain-language instructions that identify approved contact options and what a person can expect next. |
| Protect privacy | Review channels, spaces, documentation, and role access against organizational policy and applicable requirements. |
| Protect respectful continuity | Align clear access, privacy, qualified response, approved escalation, and transition ownership without making assumptions about any person. |
| Hold the transition | Confirm acceptance when responsibility moves, and use approved escalation when the next owner is unavailable. |
| Learn without stigma | Review delays, drop-offs, repeat contacts, and experience feedback to improve the system rather than judge the person. |
Equity and trust
Equity and trust shape who can dispose safely
Disposal access follows the same fault lines as other pharmacy services. The national pharmacy access study found significant disparities, especially in small rural areas.[6] Where the nearest pharmacy is far away, a separate disposal trip is an added burden that leaders should not assume patients will absorb. Transportation, work schedules, caregiving and disability can all turn a short errand into a barrier. Those burdens are rarely visible in a count of collection sites.
Community-designed approaches can widen the route. The tribal initiative paired health care facility drop boxes with household deactivation bags.[14] Its authors framed the approach as adaptable to any community’s needs.[14] That combination offers both a place-based option and a home-based option, which matters where distance or privacy concerns keep people away from facilities.
Trusted messengers appear to matter. In the pouch study, acceptance was 68.2% at a community event and 100% when community health workers offered the pouches.[11] The two waves differed in timing and setting, so the comparison is descriptive rather than causal. Even so, it suggests that who offers the tool may matter as much as the tool itself. Community health workers, faith leaders and tribal health staff often hold trust that a hospital campaign cannot borrow quickly.
Equity also shows up in who is studied. In the urologic cancer surgery cohort, 90.6% of the 647 opioid-naive patients were White and 73.9% were male.[12] The Michigan survey recruited its participants through social media advertisements, which shapes who answered.[15] Online recruitment can miss older adults and people with limited internet access, who may face the steepest disposal barriers. Evidence drawn from a narrower group may not describe the patients who face the most barriers. Local pilots should track who enrolls and who declines, not only who disposes.
The Michigan survey authors recommended education and safe storage equipment designed for diverse ages, races and ethnicities, and education levels.[15] For executives, the operating step is to stratify disposal and stewardship measures by those same characteristics. Results are best reviewed with community partners rather than in isolation. Trust grows when people see that the organization acts on what they report, and when disposal is offered without suspicion or judgment.
Human infrastructure
The people who make stewardship and disposal work
Pharmacists are natural owners of the disposal conversation, and many already see the problem. In a survey of 1,146 U.S. pharmacists, 75% reported concerns about opioid use problems at their pharmacies.[9] Another 62% reported concerns about non-opioid drug use problems.[9] Having received 2 hours of opioid-related training in the past year was associated with higher commitment and readiness to provide preventive services.[9] So was having practiced pharmacy for under 6 years.[9] The authors called for incentives and tools to support structured service delivery.[9]
Counseling tends to be reactive, even among well-informed pharmacists. In a May 2025 survey of 285 community pharmacists in Romania, 98.2% reported awareness of current legislation and 94.4% reported training on new regulations.[2] Yet 55.4% provided disposal information only when patients asked.[2] Meanwhile, 89.8% said patients rarely asked about disposal.[2] Knowledge did not become proactive counseling without a prompt. Nearly all respondents, 98.9%, agreed that patient education is important.[2] The gap is therefore one of workflow and time rather than conviction.
Prescribers respond to feedback that is specific and timely. In a stepped-wedge trial across six surgical departments of a five-hospital academic health system, 143 clinicians treating 20,557 patients received peer comparison and patient-reported feedback.[5] Guideline adherence rose from 57.2% at baseline to 71.8% during the intervention, an adjusted effect of 5.3%.[5] Adherence stayed at 74.4% during follow-up, and patient-reported pain and ability to manage pain were unchanged.[5]
Teams do not have to build stewardship alone. In a one-year collaborative, nine diverse health systems completed quality improvement projects to reduce opioid prescriptions for acute pain.[13] Seven of the nine institutions definitively achieved their desired results.[13] The authors described the collaborative model as useful for producing real change in prescribing.[13] For smaller or rural systems, joining a shared effort can supply measurement support and peer learning that a single organization would struggle to fund.
The workforce implication is protected time and clear roles. Pharmacists need a defined moment to raise disposal, prescribers need regular feedback, and a named improvement lead needs time to run the cycle. Without those, stewardship depends on individual goodwill. Workload belongs in the review as well: a disposal conversation added to an already crowded pharmacy counter will be the first task dropped on a busy day.
Executive guidance · Operating dashboard
Use a small dashboard to expose friction and ownership.
Do not publish a number until the organization defines its numerator, denominator where relevant, owner, source system, exclusions, review cadence, and limits. The candidates below are management prompts, not benchmarks or reported results.
Four operating signals
Each signal pairs an executive question with one candidate local measure, set out below.
Executive guidance · Signal
Access clarity
Can people understand where to begin and what will happen after contact?
- Candidate local measure
- Locally defined contact, routing, response, and repeat-contact signals.
Executive guidance · Signal
Privacy reliability
Do channels, roles, and spaces support organizational privacy expectations?
- Candidate local measure
- Reported privacy barriers, process exceptions, training needs, and corrective-action status.
Executive guidance · Signal
Respectful continuity
Can people reach qualified support and remain connected through transitions without stigma or unowned work?
- Candidate local measure
- Locally defined access barriers, repeat contacts, unaccepted transfers, escalation, and experience feedback.
Executive guidance · Signal
Experience and learning
Can people and staff identify barriers without stigma or futility?
- Candidate local measure
- Feedback themes, assigned improvements, response status, and verified changes.
Figure 4
The operating system behind the dashboard
The four operating signals from this brief’s dashboard, each tied to the candidate owner named in the executive scorecard, around one accountable route. Drawn from the page’s original executive guidance.
Data note. Structural diagram; no measured values.
Limitation. Owners are candidates to be confirmed locally.
Figure data (4 rows)
| Operating signal | Candidate owner |
|---|---|
| Access clarity | Executive sponsor and operational lead |
| Privacy reliability | Operational owner and participating teams |
| Respectful continuity | Sending and receiving owners |
| Experience and learning | Improvement owner and executive sponsor |
Executive guidance · Handoff workflow
Close the loop across teams, settings, and partners.
A handoff is reliable only when the sending party knows who is expected to receive the work, the receiving party acknowledges responsibility, and any unresolved exception remains visible. Local policy and qualified judgment control the actual process.
How responsibility moves
Lane A
From message to accepted ownership
- Confirm the approved message and intended audience.
- Publish the actual entry point and receiving role.
- Acknowledge receipt using the locally approved method.
- Escalate when ownership or response remains unclear.
Lane B
From accepted ownership to verified follow-through
- Record the next accountable owner and visible status.
- Use the approved private channel, name the qualified receiver, and preserve visibility under local escalation policy.
- Keep unresolved work visible across boundaries.
- Confirm closure or document the continuing exception.
Executive guidance · Executive scorecard
Give leaders one view of route reliability and improvement.
The scorecard keeps review focused on decisions. Leaders should set definitions locally, examine variation without overclaiming cause, and pair quantitative signals with the experience of people who use and operate the route.
Who reviews what
- Executive sponsor and operational lead
- Operational owner and participating teams
- Sending and receiving owners
- Improvement owner and executive sponsor
Candidate owners named in the scorecard, confirmed locally.
| Operating signal | Executive question | Candidate owner | Suggested review point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access clarity | Can people understand where to begin and what will happen after contact? | Executive sponsor and operational lead | At campaign launch and close |
| Privacy reliability | Do channels, roles, and spaces support organizational privacy expectations? | Operational owner and participating teams | At a locally defined cadence |
| Respectful continuity | Can people reach qualified support and remain connected through transitions without stigma or unowned work? | Sending and receiving owners | At a locally defined cadence |
| Experience and learning | Can people and staff identify barriers without stigma or futility? | Improvement owner and executive sponsor | Until action is verified |
Figure 5
Control points for opioid stewardship and safe disposal
| Control point | Risk if missing | Owner | Evidence of control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedure-specific default quantities in discharge order sets | Routine prescriptions exceed need and create leftover supply | Chief medical officer with surgical service chiefs | Share of discharge prescriptions within the approved quantity for audited procedures |
| Prescriber feedback using peer comparison and patient-reported use | Variation persists without visibility | Opioid stewardship committee chair | Guideline adherence trend by service and clinician group |
| A disposal option offered at discharge or delivered home | Patients leave with tablets and no practical route | Pharmacy director with nursing and care transitions leads | Share of opioid discharges with a documented disposal option |
| Disposal confirmation after discharge | No one knows whether disposal happened | Care transitions or digital outreach lead | Share of patients contacted who report disposal within the follow-up window |
| Mapped disposal sites for each service area | Rural and pharmacy-desert residents have no nearby route | Community health or population health lead | Current map of sites, hours and gaps reviewed with partners |
| Pharmacist disposal counseling as a standard step | Counseling happens only when patients ask | Pharmacy operations manager | Counseling documentation rate for opioid prescriptions |
| Stratified review of stewardship and disposal measures | Gaps for specific groups remain invisible | Health equity officer with quality lead | Measures reported by race, ethnicity, language, age, payer and rurality |
Control points derived from the cited evidence [2], [4], [5], [6], [8], [12], [14] and this brief’s executive guidance.
Data note. Each row is a control to verify, not a measured result.
Limitation. Owners and evidence of control must follow local policy and applicable requirements.
Public communication
Communicating disposal in ways people can act on
Awareness messaging is necessary but not sufficient. The Palestinian survey found that positive attitudes coexisted with inadequate disposal practices.[1] Its authors concluded that effective policy should pair risk communication with removing logistical obstacles.[1] They identified accessible pharmacy-based take-back programs as the most feasible route.[1] Knowledge gaps were specific as well: only 29.4% of respondents linked improper disposal to antibiotic resistance.[1] General campaigns rarely correct specific misunderstandings of that kind.
Interest does not guarantee action. In the pouch study, community members expressed interest in using pouches for unused opioids and other drugs, yet most still disposed of medications in other ways.[11] The authors called for public awareness of the pouches’ benefits, ease of use, safety, environmental advantages and cost-effectiveness.[11] Messages that explain how and why a method works may close part of that gap. Testing a draft message with a small group of patients and caregivers before launch is a low-cost way to find confusing steps.
Patient questions shape what professionals say. The Romanian pharmacist survey found that patient demand was associated with more proactive disposal counseling.[2] Public communication that invites people to ask their pharmacist about disposal can therefore support the workforce as well as the public. In the same survey, 89.8% of pharmacists said patients rarely asked about disposal.[2] A simple prompt in public messages, such as encouraging people to ask at pickup, addresses that silence directly.
Closing the loop is part of communication. A short follow-up message after discharge can ask whether leftover medication has been disposed of. A confirmation step turns a one-way message into a measurable action. It also gives the organization a way to learn which messages and channels lead to disposal, rather than relying on reach or impressions.
For Take Back Day, the most credible message names a real local route, the hours it is open and what happens to the medication. It should be consistent across clinics, pharmacies and community partners. It should also be repeated after the observance ends, because unused medication accumulates throughout the year. Plain language, translated materials and images of the actual drop box or pouch can make the step easier to recognize. Messages should avoid implying that people with leftover medication have done something wrong.
Executive guidance · 90-day plan
Turn the observance into one sustained operating change.
The time boxes below are a management framework, not a clinical timeline. Adjust them to risk, scope, governance, resources, stakeholder participation, and applicable review requirements.
Ninety days, three moves
- Days 1–30See the current route
- Days 31–60Build the reliable path
- Days 61–90Make the change visible
Days 1–30 · Listen and map
See the current route
- Name an executive sponsor and an operational owner.
- Listen to people using the route and representative frontline teams.
- Map how National Prescription Drug Take Back Day communications connect to real entry points, owners, transitions, and escalation.
- Select one recurring barrier that the organization can responsibly address.
Days 31–60 · Design and test
Build the reliable path
- Define the trigger, receiving owner, required information, acknowledgment, escalation, and closure signal.
- Validate the design with every sending and receiving team involved.
- Test one respectful access-to-qualified-support handoff and remove a verified privacy, clarity, or ownership barrier.
- Test the route in more than one representative setting or operating period where practical.
Days 61–90 · Implement and verify
Make the change visible
- Launch the redesigned route with a small set of locally defined measures.
- Review unresolved work and recurring friction using a learning approach.
- Correct implementation barriers and record who owns each remaining dependency.
- Report what changed, what evidence was reviewed, and what still requires live oversight.
Figure 6
The 90-day plan on one timeline
The 90-day plan from this brief drawn as a timeline: each action sits in the 30-day window the plan assigns it. The full wording of each action is in the figure data and in the plan above.
Data note. Time boxes are a management framework, not a clinical timeline.
Limitation. Durations are uniform 30-day windows; real tasks may span windows.
Figure data (12 rows)
| Window | Action |
|---|---|
| Days 1–30 · Listen and map | Name an executive sponsor and an operational owner. |
| Days 1–30 · Listen and map | Listen to people using the route and representative frontline teams. |
| Days 1–30 · Listen and map | Map how National Prescription Drug Take Back Day communications connect to real entry points, owners, transitions, and escalation. |
| Days 1–30 · Listen and map | Select one recurring barrier that the organization can responsibly address. |
| Days 31–60 · Design and test | Define the trigger, receiving owner, required information, acknowledgment, escalation, and closure signal. |
| Days 31–60 · Design and test | Validate the design with every sending and receiving team involved. |
| Days 31–60 · Design and test | Test one respectful access-to-qualified-support handoff and remove a verified privacy, clarity, or ownership barrier. |
| Days 31–60 · Design and test | Test the route in more than one representative setting or operating period where practical. |
| Days 61–90 · Implement and verify | Launch the redesigned route with a small set of locally defined measures. |
| Days 61–90 · Implement and verify | Review unresolved work and recurring friction using a learning approach. |
| Days 61–90 · Implement and verify | Correct implementation barriers and record who owns each remaining dependency. |
| Days 61–90 · Implement and verify | Report what changed, what evidence was reviewed, and what still requires live oversight. |
Executive guidance · Leadership close
Make National Prescription Drug Take Back Day a starting point, not an endpoint.
Recognition matters. It becomes durable when leaders also listen, clarify the route, support the people operating it, close an identified gap, and report the result without claiming more than the evidence supports.
Leadership commitment
Make ownership visible, test the route, and report what improved.
Executive action kit · Day observance
Turn National Prescription Drug Take Back Day into accountable action.
An executive-guidance framework for access, qualified response, handoffs, escalation, and learning.
Leadership focus
Use this observance to examine psychological safety, timely connection, privacy, and continuity. Select one verified barrier, assign an accountable owner, and carry the improvement beyond the campaign window.
Workforce lens
Ask whether staffing, role clarity, training, tools, workload, and escalation support the people operating the support, referral, privacy, escalation, and continuity pathway.
Patient and community lens
Make the approved first step clear. Test whether a person can move from information to an acknowledged next action without navigating conflicting instructions.
Equity and access lens
Review stigma, language, cultural safety, disability access, geography, cost, and digital barriers without assuming the same experience for every person.
Five-minute briefing
Inspect the operating sequence
Listen with people seeking support, behavioral health teams, emergency pathways, primary care, and community partners. Find one stigma, unclear ownership, a failed connection, or a privacy concern, then test the locally approved route from entry through acknowledged follow-through.
- Make access clear
- Protect privacy
- Protect respectful continuity
- Hold the transition
- Learn without stigma
Leadership actions for this week
- Name an executive sponsor and frontline operating owner.
- Ask people using and operating the pathway where ownership becomes unclear.
- Test one representative route from first question to acknowledged next step.
- Select one barrier that can be corrected without overstating the evidence.
- Set a review date and define how completion will be verified.
Candidate measures
Define every numerator, denominator where relevant, owner, data source, exclusions, cadence, and limitation locally. These are management prompts, not external benchmarks.
- Locally defined contact, routing, response, and repeat-contact signals.
- Reported privacy barriers, process exceptions, training needs, and corrective-action status.
- Locally defined access barriers, repeat contacts, unaccepted transfers, escalation, and experience feedback.
Department readiness checklist
- The public and staff entry points match the actual approved process.
- A specific role accepts each request, referral, or escalation.
- Handoffs include acknowledgment and a visible unresolved state.
- Language, disability, digital, transportation, and trust barriers receive explicit review.
- Communications do not introduce unsupported themes, statistics, or clinical advice.
- A named leader will review what changed after the observance.
Intended audiences
- Executive and Operational Leaders
- Public Health and Community Partners
- Patient Experience and Access Leaders
Staff communication template
During National Prescription Drug Take Back Day, our organization will connect awareness with a practical review of the support, referral, privacy, escalation, and continuity pathway. Use approved information, identify the correct entry point, confirm ownership when work moves, protect privacy, and escalate unresolved barriers through local channels.
Community communication template
National Prescription Drug Take Back Day is an opportunity to share trustworthy information and make the next step easier to find. Use our approved channels for information and support. If a request changes hands, our goal is to keep ownership and follow-through visible.
Measurement worksheet
- Signal
- What observable condition will show whether the route works?
- Definition
- What is included, excluded, and counted?
- Owner
- Who reviews the signal and acts on exceptions?
- Cadence
- When will leaders review it?
- Equity check
- Which differences require protected, locally appropriate review?
- Closure
- What evidence will confirm the improvement was completed?
- Editorial review
- Completed
- Source records
- 2 listed under Authoritative resources
- Review standard
- Sourced facts remain separated from original executive guidance
- Clinical boundary
- No new statistical or clinical claim was added by this action kit
Sources and content boundary
Authoritative resources
Use note: All operating models, measures, scorecard questions, and action steps are original executive guidance. This article supports leadership planning and education. It does not replace clinical judgment, emergency procedures, legal advice, professional standards, organizational policy, or applicable federal, state, and local requirements.
Peer-reviewed references
References
Fifteen peer-reviewed sources, newest first. Each was individually verified through authenticated academic research databases. Bracketed numbers in the text link here; the original executive guidance on this page carries no citations because it is guidance, not a sourced claim. Sources last checked in those databases on .
- 1.Assi AK, Amro AM, Deeb S, Awwad HH, Assi MK, Assi AK, et al. Public knowledge and practices toward safe disposal of unused and expired medications in Palestine: a cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;14:1944632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1944632
- 2.Cirstea I, Nemeth TS, Tit DM, Ghitea TC, Marin RC, Uivaraseanu B, et al. From Policy to Practice: Community Pharmacists’ Self-Reported Counseling Role in Pharmaceutical Waste Management. Healthcare. 2026;14(3):386. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14030386
- 3.Huang Y, Jacobson JS, Li G, Mauro PM, Guschwan MT, Tergas AI, et al. Applying decision curve analysis to evaluate a patient-centered opioid prescribing strategy among patients with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the US. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2026;281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2026.113076
- 4.Melucci AD, Lynch O, Lawrence M, Bramley J, Levatino E, Linehan D, et al. Opioid Stewardship: Successful, Scalable, and Adaptable Departmental Opioid Reduction Program. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2026;242(1):179-191. https://doi.org/10.1097/xcs.0000000000001482
- 5.Agarwal AK, Ebert JP, Xiong R, Ali ZS, Lee D, Shofer F, et al. Peer and Patient Feedback to Increase Adherence to Postoperative Opioid Prescribing Guidelines: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surgery. 2025;160(8):866-874. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2025.1672
- 6.Mathis WS, Berenbrok LA, Kahn PA, Appolon G, Tang S, Hernandez I. Vulnerability Index Approach to Identify Pharmacy Deserts and Keystone Pharmacies. JAMA Network Open. 2025;8(3):e250715. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.0715
- 7.Bologheanu R, Bilir A, Kapral L, Gruber F, Kimberger O. New Persistent Opioid Use After Surgery. JAMA Network Open. 2025;8(2):e2460794. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60794
- 8.Bozoghlian MF, Wilkinson B, Hadlandsmyth K, Glass N, Nepola JV, Patterson BM. Preoperative education on pain self-management and opioid consumption does not significantly impact opioid use and disposal following shoulder arthroplasty: results of a prospective randomized controlled trial. JSES International. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2025.03.010
- 9.Wu LT, King J, Hefner K, Schactman M, John W, Hagemeier N, et al. Pharmacy-based preventive services for opioid use disorder: a survey of U.S. pharmacists. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice. 2024;19(1):88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-024-00519-w
- 10.Alessio-Bilowus D, Chua KP, Peahl A, Brummett CM, Gunaseelan V, Bicket MC, et al. Epidemiology of Opioid Prescribing After Discharge From Surgical Procedures Among Adults. JAMA Network Open. 2024;7(6):e2417651. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.17651
- 11.Otufowora A, Egan KL, Chaudhari PV, Okusanya AA, Ogidan AO, Cottler LB. Drug Deactivation Pouches for Primary Prevention of Opioid Overdose: Perceptions and Attitudes of Community Members. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 2024;37(1):112-117. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230227R1
- 12.Mian BM, Singh Z, Carnes K, Lorenz L, Feustel P, Kaufman RP, et al. Implementation and Assessment of No Opioid Prescription Strategy at Discharge After Major Urologic Cancer Surgery. JAMA Surgery. 2023;158(4):378-385. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.7652
- 13.Clements CM, Hanson KT, Zavaleta KW, Stitz AM, Clark SE, Schwarz RR, et al. Collaborative improvement on acute opioid prescribing among diverse health systems. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(6):e0270179. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270179
- 14.Ampadu I, Morones R, Tsatoke A, Ampadu L, Stephens M, Crump WC, et al. Community-based medication disposal pilot initiative in southwest tribal communities. Injury Epidemiology. 2021;8(Suppl 2):67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-021-00360-8
- 15.Broman MJ, Ellis JD, Victor GA, Kollin R, Pasman E, Lister JJ, et al. Predictors of Safe Prescription Opioid Storage and Participation in Drug Take-Back Events: Results from a Statewide Survey. Journal of Community Health. 2021;46(5):1000-1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-021-00983-4
Claim-to-source matrix
What each source supports
Every sourced claim in the new sections maps to the references that support it, the section where it is used, and the limitation a reader should keep in mind. Original executive guidance carries no sources because it is guidance, not a finding.
| Claim group | Sources | Years | Used in | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration of postoperative opioid dispensing by procedure | [10] | 2024 | Executive opening | Commercial and Medicaid claims for adults aged 18 to 64; dispensing, not consumption, is measured. |
| Low take-back participation and safe storage | [15] | 2021 | Executive opening | Online convenience sample recruited through social media in one state in 2018. |
| Patient-centered, prediction-based discharge opioid prescribing | [3] | 2026 | Current evidence | Decision curve analysis of retrospective records from one urban tertiary center; the model’s c-statistic was 0.65. |
| New persistent opioid use after surgery | [7] | 2025 | Current evidence | Austrian national data; incidence lower than in North America. |
| Gap between attitudes and disposal practice | [1] | 2026 | Current evidence | Online snowball sample in Palestine; international setting. |
| Acceptance of drug deactivation pouches | [11] | 2024 | Current evidence | Acceptance is not use; waves differed in setting and timing. |
| Default and protocol-based reductions in discharge prescribing | [12] [4] | 2026, 2023 | Continuum of care | Single-institution designs comparing periods before and after implementation; results may not transfer to other systems. |
| Education and prepaid mail-back disposal envelopes after surgery | [8] | 2025 | Continuum of care | Single randomized trial of 127 shoulder arthroplasty patients; disposal did not differ significantly between groups. |
| Pharmacy deserts and sole-source pharmacies | [6] | 2025 | Access | Geographic access measure; does not count disposal kiosks directly. |
| Facility drop boxes and household deactivation bags in tribal communities | [14] | 2021 | Access | Descriptive pilot; no comparison group. |
| Pharmacist readiness and reactive disposal counseling | [9] [2] | 2026, 2024 | Human infrastructure | Self-reported surveys; Romanian sample from one county. |
| Feedback and collaborative improvement in prescribing | [5] [13] | 2025, 2022 | Human infrastructure | Academic and collaborative settings; adherence rather than patient outcomes as primary measure. |
About the author
Greg Wahlstrom
MBAHCM
President and Chief Executive Officer, The Healthcare Executive
View Greg’s profile©2014 – 2026 The Healthcare Executive. All rights reserved.