The ADMIN-ICU survey: A survey on antimicrobial dosing and monitoring in ICUs

Objectives: There is little evidence and few guidelines to inform the most appropriate dosing and monitoring for antimicrobials in the ICU. We aimed to survey current practices around the world. Methods: An online structured questionnaire was developed and sent by e-mail to obtain information on local antimicrobial prescribing practices for glycopeptides, piperacillin/tazobactam, carbapenems, aminoglycosides and colistin. Results: A total of 402 professionals from 328 hospitals in 53 countries responded, of whom 78% were specialists in intensive care medicine (41% intensive care, 30% anaesthesiology, 14% internal medicine) and 12% were pharmacists. Vancomycin was used as a continuous infusion in 31% of units at a median (IQR) daily dose of 25 (25–30) mg/kg. Piperacillin/tazobactam was used as an extended infusion by 22% and as a continuous infusion by 7%. An extended infusion of carbapenem (meropenem or imipenem) was used by 27% and a continuous infusion by 5%. Colistin was used at a daily dose of 7.5 (3.9–9) million IU (MIU)/day, predominantly as a short infusion. The most commonly used aminoglycosides were gentamicin (55%) followed by amikacin (40%), with administration as a single daily dose reported in 94% of the cases. Gentamicin was used at a daily dose of 5 (5–6) mg/day and amikacin at a daily dose of 15 (15–20) mg/day. Therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem was used by 74%, 1% and 2% of the respondents, respectively. Peak aminoglycoside concentrations were sampled daily by 28% and trough concentrations in all patients by 61% of the respondents. Conclusions: We found wide variability in reported practices for antibiotic dosing and monitoring. Research is required to develop evidence-based guidelines to standardize practices.

Up close and personal with those experiencing homelessness: Pharmacist involvement in a multidisciplinary healthcare team

Introduction. The Brisbane City Council holds a biannual Homeless Connect event which brings together business and community groups on one day to provide free services to people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Pharmacists were involved in this initiative and provided health services in a multidisciplinary healthcare environment building on the lessons of previous Homeless Connect events (Chan et al, 2015) Aims. To explore pharmacists reflections on their role in a multidisciplinary healthcare team providing services at a community outreach event for those experiencing homelessness. Methods. The pharmacists (n=2) documented the types of services provided during the Homeless Connect event. A semi-structured interview was conducted post-event to investigate barriers, facilitators and changes that would be recommended for future events. Their perceptions of their role in the multidisciplinary healthcare team were also explored. Results. Primarily, the services provided included delivery of primary healthcare, advice on accessing cost effective pharmacy services and addressing medication enquiries. The pharmacists also provided moisturiser samples and health information leaflets. Interdisciplinary referrals were primarily between the pharmacists and podiatrists; no pharmacist-medical practitioner referrals occurred. The pharmacists did believe they had a positive role in this health initiative but improvements could be implemented to improve the delivery of these services in future events. Discussion. Pharmacists can play an important role in providing services to people experiencing or at risk of homelessness and the overall experience was positive for the pharmacists. They were able to integrate into a multidisciplinary healthcare team in this setting but strategies for further collaboration were identified. The possibility of involving pharmacy students in future events was identified.

A systematic review of community pharmacist therapeutic knowledge of dietary supplements

Background: Internationally, the use of dietary supplements has been growing rapidly. Patient support for pharmacist sales of nutritional and dietary supplements is also strong. The increase in demand for nutritional and dietary supplements and subsequent advice about these products, however, makes it necessary that pharmacists maintain a contemporary knowledge of the area. Aim of review: This systematic review was conducted to examine the current evidence regarding the level of the nutritional and dietary supplement knowledge of community pharmacists and their understanding of their therapeutic effects. Method: Electronic databases including Medline, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, Scifinder and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched. Studies assessing nutritional knowledge of pharmacists in community pharmacies were eligible for inclusion. All languages and study designs were considered. Study results were analysed and pharmacist knowledge scores were given out of 100 . Results: From 5594 studies identified, nine met the inclusion criteria. Each study tested pharmacist knowledge with predetermined questions calculating results as the number of questions answered correctly. These knowledge scores were converted to a percentage score for the purpose of this paper. The median knowledge score across all papers was 64%. A lack of studies assessing community pharmacist's knowledge of commonly sold vitamins and minerals was observed. Conclusions Global community pharmacist knowledge of dietary supplements appears to be poor. Community pharmacists have an professional responsibility to provide accurate health information about dietary supplements as they do for any other therapies they provide to patients. Further research including that which assesses pharmacist's therapeutic knowledge of commonly sold vitamins and minerals is suggested.

Look-alike, sound-alike medication errors: A novel case concerning a Slow-Na, Slow-K prescribing error

A 59-year-old man was mistakenly prescribed Slow-Na instead of Slow-K due to incorrect selection from a drop-down list in the prescribing software. This error was identified by a pharmacist during a home medicine review (HMR) before the patient began taking the supplement. The reported error emphasizes the need for vigilance due to the emergence of novel look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drug pairings. This case highlights the important role of pharmacists in medication safety.

Nutritional intake of opioid replacement therapy patients in community pharmacies: A pilot study

Aim: Opioid replacement therapy (ORT) is an established therapy for a patient group that has been associated with nutrition-related comorbidities. This paper aims to assess the nutritional intake and supplementation in ORT patients, determine the extent of nutritional/dietary advice supplied to ORT patients and to briefly examine patients' perception of pharmacists' provision of nutritional advice. Methods: The nutritional intake of ORT patients receiving treatment in community pharmacies within the Australian Capital Territory was assessed via a 24-hour recall survey. Food intake data were analysed via nutrient analysis software and compared with Australian Nutrition Reference Values and the nutrient intakes of the Australian population. Patients were surveyed to determine supplement use and perceptions of nutritional advice gained by pharmacists. Results: Potential insufficient intake of various macronutrients and micronutrients was observed in both sexes. Less than 25 of patients recorded supplement use. Fifteen percent of males and 21 of females stated that they had approached a pharmacist with a nutrition-related query. All patients who received nutritional advice followed the advice. Conclusions: ORT patients dosing at community pharmacies appear to have poor nutritional intake. ORT patients appear to be receptive to pharmacist's advice. Community pharmacists can potentially increase the beneficial health outcomes in this population through the proactive supply of accurate nutritional advice.

Non-medical prescribing in Australia

The announcement in the 2009 federal budget to allow nurse practitioners and midwives access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Medicare Benefits Scheme,1and the subsequent announcement of a November 2010 start date,2has brought non-medical prescribing into the public arena. Non-medical prescribing is not a new concept in Australia as nurse practitioners, podiatrists and optometrists have been authorised to prescribe under various state legislations for some time. However, state legislation is not uniform in relation to authorisation or formulary. Midwives are currently seeking prescribing rights,3and other groups such as physiotherapists and pharmacists are likely to seek them in the future.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical tips: Bowel cancer screening

So, when was the last time you checked your poo? Checking your poo – it probably is not a conversation many patients want to have with their pharmacists. But bowel cancer screening remains an important tool in cancer detection...

AJP clinical update: Eye health

For most people our eyes provide around 80% of the information from our surroundings, and pharmacists are perfectly placed to help consumers maintain good eye health.

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.

Burning questions: Exploring the impact of a natural disaster on community pharmacies

Background The past decade has seen a rapid change in the climate system with an increased risk of extreme weather events. On and following the 3rd of January 2013, Tasmania experienced three catastrophic bushfires, which led to the evacuation of several communities, the loss of many properties, and a financial cost of approximately AUD$80 million. Objective To explore the impacts of the 2012/2013 Tasmanian bushfires on community pharmacies. Method Qualitative research methods were undertaken, employing semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of seven Tasmanian pharmacists. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and two different methods were used to analyse the text. The first method utilised Leximancer® text analytics software to provide a birds-eye view of the conceptual structure of the text. The second method involved manual, open and axial coding, conducted independently by the two researchers for inter-rater reliability, to identify key themes in the discourse. Results Two main themes were identified - ‘people’ and ‘supply’ - from which six key concepts were derived. The six concepts were ‘patients’, ‘pharmacists’, ‘local doctor’, ‘pharmacy operations’, ‘disaster management planning’, and ‘emergency supply regulation’. Conclusion This study identified challenges faced by community pharmacists during Tasmanian bushfires. Interviewees highlighted the need for both the Tasmanian State Government and the Australian Federal Government to recognise the important primary care role that community pharmacists play during natural disasters, and therefore involve pharmacists in disaster management planning. They called for greater support and guidance for community pharmacists from regulatory and other government bodies during these events. Their comments highlighted the need for a review of Tasmania’s 3-day emergency supply regulation that allows pharmacists to provide a three-day supply of a patient’s medication without a doctor’s prescription in an emergency situation.