Who was vaccinated in Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot?

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists vaccination. Aim: The aim was to explore demographics of people vaccinated by a pharmacist, and their satisfaction with the service. Method: Demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software, and participants completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ after their influenza vaccination. Results: A total of 10889 participant records were analysed and >8000 participants completed the post-vaccination survey. Males accounted for 37% of participants, with the majority of participants aged between 45-64 years (53%). Overall, 49% of participants had been vaccinated before, the majority at a GP clinic (60%). Most participants reported receiving their previous influenza vaccination from a nurse (61%). Interestingly, 1% thought a pharmacist had administered their previous vaccination, while 7% were unsure who had administered it. It was also of note that approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but opted to receive their vaccine in a pharmacy. Overall, 95% were happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future and 97% would recommend this service to other people. Conclusion: Participants were overwhelmingly positive in their response to the pharmacist vaccination pilot. These findings have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists with the aim to increase vaccination rates across the state.

Who did pharmacists vaccinate in Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot?

Introduction: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP) began in April 2014, and was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists vaccination. An aim of QPIP was to investigate participants’ satisfaction with the service, and their overall experience with the service. Method: Patient demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. After receiving the influenza vaccine from the pharmacist, participants were asked to complete a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction questionnaire’. Results: A total of 10,889 participants received influenza vaccinations from a pharmacist, and >8000 participants completed the post-vaccination survey. Males accounted for 37% of participants, with the majority of participants aged between 45-64 years (53%). Almost half of the participants had been vaccinated before, the majority at a GP clinic (60%), and most participants reported receiving their previous influenza vaccination from a nurse (61%). Interestingly, 7% were unsure which healthcare professional had vaccinated them, and 1% thought a pharmacist had administered their previous vaccination. It was also noteworthy that approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination under the National Immunisation Program, but opted to receive their vaccine in a pharmacy. Overall, 95% were happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future and 97% would recommend this service to other people. Conclusion: Participants were overwhelmingly positive in their response to the pharmacist vaccination pilot. These findings have paved the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists with the aim to increase vaccination rates across the country. The pilot has now been expanded to include the administration of vaccinations for measles and pertussis.

Pharmacist vaccination – an Australian first, but what was the impact?

Introduction/background/issues The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot is Australia’s first to allow pharmacists vaccination. The pilot ran between April 1st 2014 and August 31st 2014, with pharmacists administering influenza vaccination during the flu season. The aim of this work was to investigate the benefits of trained registered pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results/discussions A total of 10,889 participant records were analysed. Females accounted for 63% of participants, with the majority of participants aged between 45-64 years (53%). Overall, 49% of participants had been vaccinated before, the majority at a GP clinic (60%). Most participants reported receiving their previous influenza vaccination from a nurse (61%). Interestingly, 1% thought a pharmacist had administered their previous vaccination, while 7% were unsure which health professional had administered it. It was also of note that approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine in a pharmacy. Over 8,000 participants took part in the post-vaccination survey, 93% were happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future while 94% would recommend this service to other people. The remaining 7% and 6% respectively had omitted to fill in those questions. Conclusions/implications These findings have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists with the aim to increase vaccination rates across Australia. Key message • Scope of practice and ability for health providers like pharmacists to provide services such as vaccination in primary care. • New service delivery to improve access to service, and increase immunisation rates.

The health professional behind the syringe: Benefits of a pharmacist vaccination program

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP) which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists to administer vaccinations. An aim of QPIP was to investigate the benefits of trained pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods: Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results: A total of 10,889 participant records and 8,737 satisfaction surveys were analysed. Overall, 1.9% of the participants reported living with a chronic illness, and 22.5% were taking concomitant medications. As part of the consultation before receiving the vaccine, participants acknowledged the opportunity to discuss other aspects of their health with the pharmacist, including concerns about their general health, allergies, and other medications they were taking. It was worth noting that 17.5% of people would not have received an influenza vaccination if the QPIP service was unavailable. Additionally, approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine from a pharmacist. Conclusion: The findings from this pilot demonstrate the benefit of a pharmacist vaccination program in increasing vaccination rates, and have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists.

Queensland pharmacist immunisation pilot phase 1 pharmacist vaccination - Influenza final report

The results of the pilot demonstrated that a pharmacist delivered vaccinations services is feasible in community pharmacy and is safe and effective. The accessibility of the pharmacist across the influenza season provided the opportunity for more people to be vaccinated, particularly those who had never received an influenza vaccine before. Patient satisfaction was extremely high with nearly all patients happy to recommend the service and to return again next year. Factors critical to the success of the service were: 1. Appropriate facilities 2. Competent pharmacists 3. Practice and decision support tools 4. In-­‐store implementation support We demonstrated in the pilot that vaccination recipients preferred a private consultation area. As the level of privacy afforded to the patients increased (private room vs. booth), so did the numbers of patients vaccinated. We would therefore recommend that the minimum standard of a private consultation room or closed-­‐in booth, with adequate space for multiple chairs and a work / consultation table be considered for provision of any vaccination services. The booth or consultation room should be used exclusively for delivering patient services and should not contain other general office equipment, nor be used as storage for stock. The pilot also demonstrated that a pharmacist-­‐specific training program produced competent and confident vaccinators and that this program can be used to retrofit the profession with these skills. As vaccination is within the scope of pharmacist practice as defined by the Pharmacy Board of Australia, there is potential for the universities to train their undergraduates with this skill and provide a pharmacist vaccination workforce in the near future. It is therefore essential to explore appropriate changes to the legislation to facilitate pharmacists’ practice in this area. Given the level of pharmacology and medicines knowledge of pharmacists, combined with their new competency of providing vaccinations through administering injections, it is reasonable to explore additional vaccines that pharmacists could administer in the community setting. At the time of writing, QPIP has already expanded into Phase 2, to explore pharmacists vaccinating for whooping cough and measles. Looking at the international experience of pharmacist delivered vaccination, we would recommend considering expansion to other vaccinations in the future including travel vaccinations, HPV and selected vaccinations to those under the age of 18 years. Overall the results of the QPIP implementation have demonstrated that an appropriately trained pharmacist can deliver safely and effectively influenza vaccinations to adult patients in the community. The QPIP showed the value that the accessibility of pharmacists brings to public health outcomes through improved access to vaccinations and the ability to increase immunisation rates in the general population. Over time with the expansion of pharmacist vaccination services this will help to achieve more effective herd immunity for some of the many diseases which currently have suboptimal immunisation rates.

Induction of partial immunity in both males and females is sufficient to protect females against sexual transmission of Chlamydia

Sexually transmitted Chlamydia trachomatis causes infertility, and because almost 90% of infections are asymptomatic, a vaccine is required for its eradication. Mathematical modeling studies have indicated that a vaccine eliciting partial protection (non-sterilizing) may prevent Chlamydia infection transmission, if administered to both sexes before an infection. However, reducing chlamydial inoculum transmitted by males and increasing infection resistance in females through vaccination to elicit sterilizing immunity has yet to be investigated experimentally. Here we show that a partially protective vaccine (chlamydial major outer membrane protein (MOMP) and ISCOMATRIX (IMX) provided sterilizing immunity against sexual transmission between immunized mice. Immunizing male or female mice before an infection reduced chlamydial burden and disease development, but did not prevent infection. However, infection and inflammatory disease responsible for infertility were absent in 100% of immunized female mice challenged intravaginally with ejaculate collected from infected immunized males. In contrast to the sterilizing immunity generated following recovery from a previous chlamydial infection, protective immunity conferred by MOMP/IMX occurred independent of resident memory T cells. Our results demonstrate that vaccination of males or females can further protect the opposing sex, whereas vaccination of both sexes can synergize to elicit sterilizing immunity against Chlamydia sexual transmission.

The extremophile Nicotiana benthamiana has traded viral defence for early vigour

A single lineage of Nicotiana benthamiana is widely used as a model plant1 and has been instrumental in making revolutionary discoveries about RNA interference (RNAi), viral defence and vaccine production. It is peerless in its susceptibility to viruses and its amenability in transiently expressing transgenes2,3. These unparalleled characteristics have been associated both positively and negatively with a disruptive insertion in the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 1 gene, Rdr14–6. For a plant so routinely used in research, the origin, diversity and evolution of the species, and the basis of its unusual abilities, have been relatively unexplored. Here, by comparison with wild accessions from across the spectrum of the species’ natural distribution, we show that the laboratory strain of N. benthamiana is an extremophile originating from a population that has retained a mutation in Rdr1 for ∼0.8 Myr and thereby traded its defence capacity for early vigour and survival in the extreme habitat of central Australia. Reconstituting Rdr1 activity in this isolate provided protection. Silencing the functional allele in a wild strain rendered it hypersusceptible and was associated with a doubling of seed size and enhanced early growth rate. These findings open the way to a deeper understanding of the delicate balance between protection and vigour.

Looking at the other side: Families, public health and anti-vaccination

The choice to vaccinate or not to vaccinate a child is usually an ‘informed decision’, however, it is how this decision is informed which is of most importance. More frequently, families are turning to the Internet, in particular social media, as a data source to support their decisions. However, much of the online information may be unscientific or biased. While issues such as vaccination will always see dissenting voices, engaging with that ‘other side’ is difficult in the public policy debate which is informed by evidence based science. This chapter investigates the other side in light of the growing adoption and reliance on social media as a source of anti-vaccine information. The study adopts a qualitative approach to data collection and is based on a critical discourse analysis of online social media discourse. The findings demonstrate the valuable contribution this approach can make to public policy work in vaccination.