Article

Description of the characteristics of pharmacist-based immunization services in North carolina: Results of a pharmacist survey

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Campbell University, Buies Creek, NC, USA.
Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 11/2008; 48(6):744-51. DOI: 10.1331/JAPhA.2008.07080
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To describe the characteristics of pharmacist immunizers and pharmacist-based immunization services in North Carolina based on immunizing pharmacist survey responses and to identify barriers and challenges to pharmacist-based immunization services in North Carolina.
Descriptive, nonexperimental, cross-sectional study.
All pharmacists with an active pharmacist license in North Carolina in early 2007.
Electronic survey.
Settings in which pharmacist respondents practiced, types of immunization services offered, level of participation in immunization services, and perceptions of possible barriers and challenges to providing pharmacistbased immunization services.
1,274 (12.8%) responses were included in the final analysis. Approximately 22% of respondents (n = 286) had completed an immunization certificate training program. Of these respondents, more than half (n = 148) had administered vaccinations in the past year (active immunizers). The majority (52%) of active immunizers had been in practice for fewer than 10 years and worked in either community chain or independent pharmacies. Almost all respondents actively involved in administering immunizations offered inactivated influenza immunizations (95.9%). A smaller percentage of pharmacists (39.2%) offered pneumococcal vaccinations at their practice site. All respondents were likely to perceive time and area/space as barriers to providing immunization services; each group also had several distinct perceived barriers. Many factors were perceived as barriers to pharmacists' ability to provide care by active immunizers. The majority of active immunizers were willing to provide additional vaccine types.
This research has provided information about the number of pharmacists providing immunization services and characteristics of the services they provide. The demographics and settings of pharmacists in relationship to their engagement in immunization services are also provided. Last, the current work helps assess the perceived barriers to providing immunization services and pharmacist interest in expanded opportunities.

0 Followers
 · 
60 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: MEDICATION SAFETY Overlooked Renal Dosage Adjustments A retrospective analysis of 647 patients at hospital discharge com-pared required renal dosage adjust-ments to dosage actually prescribed. This study was conducted at VieCuri Medical Centre in Venlo, Netherlands. Patient demographics and renal function data were col-lected, and dosage adjustment needs were assessed via the pharmacy-supported discharge counseling ser-vice. The incidence of inappropriate dosing based on renal function was measured at hospital discharge. Thirty-seven percent of patients evaluated during the study period (237/647) had a creatinine clear-ance less than 51 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ; dosage adjustment was warranted in 23.9% (411/1,718) of prescrip-tions. When dosage adjustment should have been performed, more than 40% of prescriptions (169/411; 41.1%) were inappropri-ate for renal function (9.8% of pre-scriptions overall; 169/1,718). Fur-thermore, 60.4% (102/169) of inappropriate prescriptions pos-sessed the potential for moderate or severe clinical consequences, as evaluated by a panel of two clinical pharmacologists and one nephrolo-gist. Study authors also noted a lack of standardized dosing guidelines for agents requiring renal dosage adjustment. The authors also sug-gested that augmenting medication systems by adding dynamic renal dosing alerts would improve moni-toring. Summary: A comparison of suggested renal dosing and actual dosing at hospital discharge revealed that appropriate prescribing may be overlooked. van Dijk EA, Drabbe NRG, Kruijtbosch M, De Smet PAGM. Drug dosage adjust-ments according to renal function at hos-pital discharge. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:1254-1260.
    Hospital pharmacy 12/1122; 41. DOI:10.1310/hpj4311-937
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Canadian Pharmacists are easy to reach. Although Québec pharmacists are not allowed to administer vaccines, they can: 1) promote vaccination, 2) counsel patients on vaccination, 3) sell vaccines and 4) provide vaccine administration by a nurse. Our objectives were to describe immunization services given in Québec pharmacies and assess the potential relation between, on one hand, pharmacy characteristics and difficulties perceived by pharmacists and, on the other hand, vaccine administration. In 2008-09, an anonymous questionnaire was mailed to all Québec pharmacy owners (n = 1663). Among the 1102 (66%) respondents, 90% stated that vaccines were sold, 27% that a nurse administered vaccines in their pharmacy and 44% were planning to offer vaccine administration in the next five years. Three out of four stated they were doing vaccine promotion and 65%, vaccine counselling. Half of respondents said they would be willing to administer vaccines themselves if legislative modifications were made. Recommendations for cold chain maintenance were followed in 23% of pharmacies selling vaccines. Presence of another health professional in the pharmacy, higher number of opening hours, not being located in the same building than a medical clinic and having an agreement to collaborate with a public health unit or a medical clinic for immunization were positively associated with vaccine administration in multivariate analysis. Higher perceived difficulties with lack of demand from patients were negatively associated with vaccine administration. Most pharmacists are willing to increase their involvement in immunization. Collaboration between public health professionals and pharmacists should be reinforced.
    Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 06/2013; 9(9). DOI:10.4161/hv.25186 · 3.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Substance abuse and addiction are growing public health problems. Pharmacists are potentially in a position to be of great assistance in ameliorating these threats yet might not be receiving the education and training to do so effectively. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative perceived importance of substance abuse topics in pharmacy education among student pharmacists and pharmacy practitioners in the state of Indiana. METHODS: Questionnaires were administered in class to students at Purdue University College of Pharmacy and via direct mail to the home addresses of randomly selected licensed Indiana pharmacists in 2009 to elicit information on the relevance and interest for particular topics within addiction education, prior education received regarding addiction, and the frequency of professional interactions that involved addiction. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty students (74%) and 625 pharmacists (26%) responded to the survey. The average interest across all surveyed topics was 3.18/4.00 for students and 3.47/4.00 for practitioners. Areas rated highly by both groups included withdrawal, pain management, and recognition of signs and symptoms of addiction in patients. Qualitative responses from practitioners suggest strong interest in further education in this area and a perceived need for increased educational exposure during the student pharmacist experience. The average pharmacist respondent spent 6.94% of the time dealing with people who were addicted, and 22.2% had independent addiction education. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists and pharmacy student respondents overwhelmingly felt that educational preparation in this area is important. A significant portion of time in practice is spent managing addiction-related issues, and further educational opportunities are being pursued beyond graduation to fulfill the educational needs of the practitioner respondents.
    Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 06/2012; 9(1). DOI:10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.03.003 · 2.35 Impact Factor