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.

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.

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.

Pharmacists' role in lung health

Breathing is important. In fact, most people take on average 23,000 breaths each day. However, most of us probably take this for granted and do not notice these breaths – unless of course maybe when we are exercising, or huffing and puffing because we are running late for the bus...

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.

Feedback and clinical practice improvement: A tool to assist workplace supervisors and students

In work integrated learning, students may report difficulties applying theory learned at university to clinical practice. One contributing factor may be students' inability to engage in meaningful reflection and self-correcting behaviours. This paper reports the evaluation of a tool, process and resources developed to assist students to reflect on feedback and engage in self-assessment. Students were assisted to develop self-assessment skills by reflecting on, and engaging with feedback from previous workplace experiences to develop goals, learning outcomes and strategies to improve performance with mostly positive results. A secondary aim was to identify common learning strategies or barriers that impacted on student outcomes. Four themes emerged from the qualitative data: 1) preparing for clinical learning; 2) relationships and engagement levels; 3) shared awareness, and; 4) developing clinical practice. Overall students felt the tool assisted them to narrow their attention on what needed to be improved. While supervisors believed the tool helped them to focus on specific needs of each student. Common barriers to clinical practice improvement related to a lack of opportunity in some settings, and lack of staff willingness to support students to achieve identified goals. Students and supervisors found the use of the tools beneficial and assisted students to demonstrate a greater understanding of how to apply feedback received to support their learning in the clinical environment.

Molecular and clinical characteristics of tricarboxylic acid cycle-associated tumors

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC) is a rare, dominantly inherited tumor predisposition syndrome characterized by benign cutaneous and uterine (ULM) leiomyomas, and sometimes renal cell cancer (RCC). A few cases of uterine leiomyosarcoma (ULMS) have also been reported. Mutations in a nuclear gene encoding fumarate hydratase (FH), an enzyme of the mitochondrial tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), underlie HLRCC. As a recessive condition, germline mutations in FH predispose to a neurological defect, FH deficiency (FHD). Hereditary paragangliomatosis (HPGL) is a dominant disorder associated with paragangliomas and pheochromocytomas. Inherited mutations in three genes encoding subunits of succinate dehydrogenase (SDH), also a TCA cycle enzyme, predispose to HPGL. Both FH and SDH seem to act as tumor suppressors. One of the consequences of the TCA cycle defect is abnormal activation of HIF1 pathway ( pseudohypoxia ) in the HLRCC and HPGL tumors. HIF1 drives transcription of genes encoding e.g. angiogenetic factors which can facilitate tumor growth. Recently hypoxia/HIF1 has been suggested to be one of the causes of genetic instability as well. One of the aims of this study was to broaden the clinical definers of HLRCC. To determine the cancer risk and to identify possible novel tumor types associated with FH mutations eight Finnish HLRCC/FHD families were extensively evaluated. The extension of the pedigrees and the Finnish Cancer Registry based tumor search yielded genealogical and cancer data of altogether 868 individuals. The standardized incidence ratio-based comparison of HLRCC/FHD family members with general Finnish population revealed 6.5-fold risk for RCC. Moreover, risk for ULMS was highly increased. However, according to the recent and more stringent diagnosis criteria of ULMS many of the HLRCC uterine tumors previously considered malignant are at present diagnosed as atypical or proliferative ULMs (with a low risk of recurrence). Thus, the formation of ULMS (as presently defined) in HLRCC appears to be uncommon. Though increased incidence was not observed, interestingly the genetic analyses suggested possible association of breast and bladder cancer with loss of FH. Moreover, cancer cases were exceptionally detected in an FHD family. Another clinical finding was the conventional (clear cell) type RCC of a young Spanish HLRCC patient. Conventional RCC is distinct from the types previously observed in this syndrome but according to these results, FH mutation may underlie some of young conventional cancer cases. Secondly, the molecular pathway from defective TCA cycle to tumor formation was intended to clarify. Since HLRCC and HPGL tumors display abnormally activated HIF1, the hypothesis on the link between HIF1/hypoxia and genetic instability was of interest to study in HLRCC and HPGL tumor material. HIF1α (a subunit of HIF1) stabilization was confirmed in the majority of the specimens. However, no repression of MSH2, a protein of DNA mismatch repair system, or microsatellite instability (MSI), an indicator of genetic instability, was observed. Accordingly, increased instability seems not to play a role in the tumorigenesis of pseudohypoxic TCA cycle-deficient tumors. Additionally, to study the putative alternative functions of FH, a recently identified alternative FH transcript (FHv) was characterized. FHv was found to contain instead of exon 1, an alternative exon 1b. Differential subcellular distribution, lack of FH enzyme activity, low mRNA expression compared to FH, and induction by cellular stress suggest FHv to have a role distinct from FH, for example in apoptosis or survival. However, the physiological significance of FHv requires further elucidation.