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.

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.

Amber teething necklaces – medical marvel or maternal myth?

BACKGROUND: 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 with analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties), which is then absorbed through the skin. AIM: To investigate whether Baltic amber teething necklaces purchased in Australia contained succinic acid, and to quantify succinic acid release from the beads. 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 to simulate aqueous or oily skin environments. 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. Only one replicate of amber beads in octanol released succinic acid, and they had fragmented, with shards free-floating in the solvent. DISCUSSION: It is likely succinic acid was only detected because the beads were breaking down in octanol, which does not occur when worn around the neck of a child. Furthermore, the hydrophilic properties of succinic acid would not favour its absorption across hydrophobic layers of the skin and into the bloodstream. CONCLUSION: While the teething necklaces do contain small quantities of succinic acid, it is highly unlikely to be released from intact beads.

Metformin for the pain in your backside?

Pain is a sensation that most people feel at some time-be it when we accidently stub our toe, or burn our hand when reaching into the oven to pull out that souffle left baking for too long.

Raloxifene for improving attention and memory in schizophrenia?

Schizophrenia can affect people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviour, and it can be as if your brain was playing tricks on you.

Rituximab for chronic fatigue syndrome?

Most people complain about being tired and wish they could sleep in for a few more hours instead of going to work. However, 'being tired' has a whole different meaning for people living with chronic fatigue syndrome, which is also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis.

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...

Clinical tips: Treating addiction explained

Helping treat and manage addiction through pharmacotherapy is part of a complex process, write Dr Esther Lau and Professor Lisa Nissen, from the School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology...

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.