Geriatrician interventions on medication prescribing for frail older people in residential aged care facilities

Objective: In Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs), the use of certain classes of high-risk medication such as antipsychotics, potent analgesics, and sedatives is high. Here, we examined the prescribed medications and subsequent changes recommended by geriatricians during comprehensive geriatric consultations provided to residents of RACFs via videoconference. Design: This is a prospective observational study. Setting: Four RACFs in Queensland, Australia, are included. Participants: A total of 153 residents referred by general practitioners for comprehensive assessment by geriatricians delivered by video-consultation. Results: Residents’ mean (standard deviation, SD) age was 83.0 (8.1) years and 64.1% were female. They had multiple comorbidities (mean 6), high levels of dependency, and were prescribed a mean (SD) of 9.6 (4.2) regular medications. Ninety-one percent of patients were taking five or more medications daily. Of total medications prescribed (n=1,469), geriatricians recommended withdrawal of 9.8% (n=145) and dose alteration of 3.5% (n=51). New medications were initiated in 47.7% (n=73) patients. Of the 10.3% (n=151) medications considered as high risk, 17.2% were stopped and dose altered in 2.6%. Conclusion: There was a moderate prevalence of potentially inappropriate high-risk medications. However, geriatricians made relatively few changes, suggesting either that, on balance, prescription of these medications was appropriate or, because of other factors, there was a reluctance to adjust medications. A structured medication review using an algorithm for withdrawing medications of high disutility might help optimize medications in frail patients. Further research, including a broader survey, is required to understand these dynamics.

Advanced practice: A survey of current perspectives of Australian pharmacists

Background An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia (the ‘APPF’) was published in October 2012. Further to the release of the APPF, the Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework Steering Committee planned to develop an advanced practice recognition model for Australian pharmacists. Aim To gauge the perspectives of the pharmacy profession relating to advanced practice, via an online survey, in order to inform the design of the model. Method A survey was developed and administered to Australian pharmacists through SurveyMonkey . The survey content was based on findings from a review of national and international initiatives for recognition of advanced practice in pharmacy and other health disciplines, including medicine and nursing. Results The results of the survey showed that a high proportion of respondents considered they were already working at, or working towards achieving, an advanced level of practice. The responses relating to the assessment methods showed a clear preference for ‘submission of a professional portfolio’. A ‘written examination’ had a low level of support and in relation to an ‘oral examination by a panel’ there was a marked preference for a panel of multidisciplinary health professionals over a panel of pharmacists. Conclusion The survey outcomes will inform the development of an advanced pharmacy practice recognition model for Australian pharmacists, particularly in relation to the assessment methods. Survey outcomes also demonstrated that there is scope to further enhance the application of the APPF in the development and recognition of advanced practitioners, and to build greater awareness of the breadth of competencies encompassed by ‘advanced practice’.

Shift in disease burden from communicable to non-communicable diseases: Aiming to achieve Universal Health Coverage in Nepal

A major barrier to accessing healthcare services is spending, and the extended time that non-communicable diseases require treatment for means that many people around the world do not have proper access to care. Saval Khanal from Sankalpa Foundation, Nepal, Lennert Veerman and Samantha Hollingworth from the University of Queensland and Lisa Nissen from Queensland University of Technology lay out the results of their study and establish a method to forecast medicine use in Nepal.

An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia

The need to develop An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia (the “APPF”) was identified during the 2010 review of the competency standards for Australian pharmacists. The Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework Steering Committee, a collaborative profession-wide committee comprised of representatives of ten pharmacy organisations, examined and adapted existing advanced practice frameworks, all of which were found to have been based on the Competency Development and Evaluation Group (CoDEG) Advanced and Consultant Level Framework (the “CoDEG Framework”) from the United Kingdom. Its competency standards were also found to align well with the Domains of the National Competency Standards Framework for Pharmacists in Australia (the “National Framework”). Adaptation of the CoDEG Framework created an APPF that is complementary to the National Framework, sufficiently flexible to customise for recognising advanced practice in any area of professional practice and has been approved by the boards/councils of all participating organisations. The primary purpose of the APPF is to assist the development of the profession to meet the changing health care needs of the community. However, it is also a valuable tool for assuring members of the public of the competence of an advanced practice pharmacist and the quality and safety of the services they deliver.

Australian pharmacists' self-perceptions in relation to the 'Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework'

Background The Australian Pharmacy Practice Framework was developed by the Advanced Pharmacy Practice Steering Committee and endorsed by the Pharmacy Board of Australia in October 2012. The Steering Committee conducted a study that found practice portfolios to be the preferred method to assess and credential Advanced Pharmacy Practitioner, which is currently being piloted by the Australian Pharmacy Council. Credentialing is predicted to open to all pharmacists practising in Australia by November 2015. Objective To explore how Australian pharmacists self-perceived being advanced in practice and how they related their level of practice to the Australian Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework. Method This was an explorative, cross-sectional study with mixed methods analysis. Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework, a review of the recent explorative study on Advanced Practice conducted by the Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework Steering Committee and semi-structured interviews (n = 10) were utilized to create, refine and pilot the questionnaire. The questionnaire was advertised across pharmacy-organizational websites via a purposive sampling method. The target population were pharmacists currently registered in Australia. Results Seventy-two participants responded to the questionnaire. The participants were mostly female (56.9%) and in the 30–40 age group (26.4%). The pharmacists self-perceived their levels of practice as either entry, transition, consolidation or advanced, with the majority selecting the consolidation level (38.9%). Although nearly half (43.1%) of the participants had not seen the Framework beforehand, they defined Advanced Pharmacy Practice similarly to the definition outlined in the Framework, but also added specialization as a requirement. Pharmacists explained why they were practising at their level of practice, stating that not having more years of practice, lacking experience, or postgraduate/post-registration qualifications, and more involvement and recognition in practice were the main reasons for not considering themselves as an Advanced Pharmacy Practitioner. To be considered advanced by the Framework, pharmacists would need to fulfill at least 70% of the Advanced Practice competency standards at an advanced level. More than half of the pharmacists (64.7%) that self-perceived as being advanced managed to fulfill 70% or more of these Advanced Practice competency standards at the advanced level. However, none of the self-perceived entry level pharmacists managed to match at least 70% of the competencies at the entry level. Conclusion Participants' self-perception of the term Advanced Practice was similar to the definition in the Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework. Pharmacists working at an advanced level were largely able to demonstrate and justify their reasons for being advanced practitioners. However, pharmacists practising at the other levels of practice (entry, transition, consolidation) require further guidance regarding their advancement in practice.

Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot – who did pharmacists jab with a needle again? QPIP2

Introduction. The successful rollout of the Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP1) led to expansion of the pilot into Phase 2 (QPIP2), which saw pharmacists being permitted to vaccinate adults for not only influenza, but also measles and pertussis in community pharmacies. The extremely positive results from QPIP1 paved the way for expanding the scope of pharmacists across Australia. Aims. The aim was to continue 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’ after receiving their vaccination. Results. To date, 22,467 influenza vaccines, 1441 pertussis and 22 measles vaccinations have been administered by pharmacists. Females accounted for 57% of the participants, with the majority of the participants aged between 46-65 years of age (51.2%). It was interesting to note that 18.9% of the participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to be vaccinated by a pharmacist in a community pharmacy setting. Participants reported a positive experience with the pharmacist vaccination service; reporting they were happy to receive vaccinations from a pharmacy in the future, and being happy to recommend the service to others. Discussion. The overwhelmingly positive uptake of this pharmacist vaccination service is demonstrated by a 100% increase in the number of influenza vaccines administered as part of QPIP1, and the ongoing positive feedback from patients. These findings will continue to pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists across the country.

Australia’s first Pharmacists Immunisation Pilot – about the service

Background: The first phase of the Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP) ran between April and August 2014, to pilot pharmacists administering influenza vaccinations for the flu season for the first time in Australia. Aim: An aim was to investigate factors facilitating implementation of a pharmacist vaccination service in the community pharmacy setting. Method: The QPIP pharmacies were divided into two arms; the South East Queensland arm consisting of 51 Terry White Chemists (TWCs), and 29 pharmacies in the North Queensland (NQ) arm. The TWCs featured pharmacies which previously provided a vaccination service and that were experienced with using an online booking system, providing an opportunity to capture booking data. Results: The TWCs delivered 9902 (90%) of the influenza vaccinations in QPIP. Of these, 48.5% of the vaccines were delivered via appointments made using the online booking system, while 13.3% were in-store bookings. Over one-third (38.2%) of the vaccinations delivered in were “walk-ins” where the vaccination was delivered ‘on the spot’ as spontaneous or opportunistic vaccinations. The absence of a booking system meant all vaccinations delivered in the NQ arm were “walk-ins”. The online-booking data showed 10:00 am and Tuesday being the most popular time and day for vaccinations. Patients preferred having their vaccinations in private consultation rooms, over areas which used a screen to partition off a private area. Discussion: The presence of an online booking system appeared to increase the efficiency and penetration of the of vaccine service delivery. Also, as the level of privacy afforded to patients increased, the number of patients vaccinated also increased. Conclusions: As pharmacist-delivered vaccination services start to progressively roll out across Australia; these findings pave the way for more efficient and effective implementation of the service.

Amber teething necklaces: Is there any basis to their use in teething infants?

Introduction. Baltic amber-bead necklaces or bracelets are commonly used for managing teething symptoms in infants. The effectiveness of these beads is claimed to be from succinic acid release (a compound said to have analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties), which is then absorbed through the skin. Aims. To investigate whether succinic acid is contained in Baltic amber teething necklaces purchased in Australia, whether it can be released from the beads, and whether it has anti-inflammatory activity. Methods. Infrared spectroscopy was used to confirm that the teething necklaces were made of Baltic amber. The amount of succinic acid contained within the beads was quantified, and succinic acid release from intact beads was measured in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) pH 5.5 or octanol. Anti-inflammatory activity of succinic acid was compared with ibuprofen, paracetamol and hydrocortisone in vitro using THP-1 human macrophages stimulated with LPS. Secretion of the cytokines IL-1a, IL-1b, IL-8 and TNF-α were determined by ELISA. Results. Each necklace (33 beads in length) contained 19.17 ± 4.89 mg of succinic acid (mean ± se). Over a 6-month period, no succinic acid was detected in PBS. While 0.13 ± 0.09 mg of succinic acid per necklace was released in octanol, this was due to only one replicate of amber beads which had fragmented into shards free-floating in the solvent. Succinic acid had no effect on cytokine secretion unless extremely high concentrations were used and changes were likely to be associated with cell apoptosis and death. Discussion. No evidence for anti-inflammatory activity was found in the cytokines studied. It is possible that succinic acid could exert an effect via some other mechanism, but while the teething necklaces do contain small quantities of succinic acid, it is highly unlikely to be released from intact beads.

Prevalence of swallowing difficulties and medication modification in customers of community pharmacists

BACKGROUND: People may alter their solid oral medication dosage forms to make it easier to swallow. However, modification of solid medication dosage forms can lead to undesirable effects, and people may alter the dosage forms without informing the health professionals involved in their care. AIM: To estimate the prevalence of swallowing difficulties and medication modification amongst community pharmacy consumers, and to investigate consumer views, attitudes, and interactions with health professionals regarding such issues. METHODS: Consumers were recruited from five community pharmacies in Brisbane, Queensland and invited to participate in a structured interview. RESULTS: A total of 369 consumers participated in the study. Overall, 16.5% of people reported experiencing swallowing difficulties, and 10.6% of all respondents reported modifying medication dosage forms. Almost half (44.2%) of those surveyed did not think there would be issues with modifying medication dosage forms. Some consumers would not seek advice from health professionals if they experienced swallowing problems and/or would not seek advice from health professionals before modifying their medication dosage forms, regardless of their thoughts about any problems associated with this practice. CONCLUSION: Some consumers appeared to be accustomed to modifying medication dosage forms, even when there was no apparent or obvious need. People were also reluctant to seek advice from health professionals regarding swallowing difficulties, or modifying medication dosage forms. Health professionals must be assertive in educating consumers about swallowing problems, and medication dosage form modification.

Beyond vaccination: The benefits of having a pharmacist behind the syringe

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists to administer vaccinations. Aim: An aim of the pilot 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 10889 participant records and 8737 satisfaction surveys were analysed. Overall, 1.9% of participants lived with a chronic illness, and 22.5% took concomitant medications. As part of the consultation before receiving the influenza vaccination, 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 pharmacist vaccination 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.

Preparing pharmacists to vaccinate in Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot

Background: In November 2013, the Queensland Department of Health announced its intention to pilot pharmacist vaccination for influenza in the 2014 flu season. The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia Queensland Branch was tasked with developing a training program for the pilot. Aim: The aim was to develop, implement and evaluate a training program for pharmacist vaccination relevant to the needs of Australian pharmacists. Method: Background content was delivered via two online modules, while training for practical injection skills and anaphylaxis management were provided in a face-to-face workshop. Participants were required to complete the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) anaphylaxis e-training for pharmacists, and hold a current First-Aid and CPR certificate. On completion of the course, pharmacists were asked to evaluate the training program. Results: Overall, 157 pharmacists across Queensland completed the training. Participants rated the training highly on a 5-point Likert scale (>4.4 for all fields) for relevance to practice, comfort with the skill, confidence to do the task and relevance of the learning objectives to the training. Qualitative feedback indicated that a key component of the training was the ability to practice injections on each other. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate participants felt prepared for vaccination following completion of the training program, as reflected in the high level of confidence reported. A follow-up post-pilot will explore if this confidence was translated into practice during the implementation phase.

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.