ABSTRACT
Background and importanceThe COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy profiles. Healthcare workers (HCW), a priority group for vaccination in Portugal, were probably the first to receive mixed vaccines for COVID-19. A previous study reported more adverse events (AE) after using two different COVID-19 vaccines in adults aged 50 years and older. To our knowledge, there are no data for younger individuals.Aim and objectivesTo identify and compare self-reported AE after a second dose of Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines in HCW who received a first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine.Material and methodsProspective, cohort study, including hospital HCW who received a first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine, and a second dose of AstraZeneca (group A) or Pfizer (group B) and completed a pharmacovigilance monitoring plan. Specific local reactions and systemic events were assessed until 10 days after each dose of the vaccine by means of a questionnaire. The data were processed using SPSS 26.0.ResultsThe study included 247 HCW, mean age 41.7±10.8 years, with 75% being female. Of them, 127 were included in group A and 120 in group B. In group A, 76.4% reported at least 1 AE, with a total of 423 AE and a median of 3 (0–15). In group B, 87.5% reported at least 1 AE, with a total of 594 AE and a median of 5 (0–17). The systemic AE with higher incidence were fatigue, malaise and headache in both groups, and chills for group A and somnolence for group B. We found a statistically significant difference in the occurrence of AE (p<0.05;OR 0.462 (0.234;0.910)) and in the number of AE in both groups (p<0.05).Conclusion and relevanceThe reported AE frequency in this study is in agreement with that described by other authors. In this study, HCW receiving a second dose of Pfizer were more likely to have an AE and higher number of AE. There are some limitations, namely, post-vaccination symptom data were self-reported and not verified. Active surveillance should continue to check the vaccines’ risk/benefit ratio over time. This safety profile knowledge in younger individuals may contribute to boosting trust in vaccines.References and/or acknowledgements1. Shaw RH, Stuart A, Greenland M, Liu X, Van-Tam JSN, Snape MD. Heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccination: initial reactogenicity data. Lancet 2021;397(10289):2043–6.Conflict of interestNo conflict of interest
ABSTRACT
Background and importanceMeasuring health care quality and performance is a major challenge in improving health systems’ efficiency. Patient experience is an important health care quality measure;thus, use of questionnaires reporting patients’ experience and perceptions while receiving care is recommended. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the establishment of proximity dispensation models and ambulatory care redesign, aligned with the Anaesthesia Clinical Services Accreditation (ACSA) accreditation model, implemented in 2019 in the Pharmacy Department.Aim and objectivesEvaluate patient-reported experience regarding outpatient care in a central hospital pharmacy, during the COVID-19 pandemic.Material and methodsSingle-centre cross-sectional study (March–June 2021). Ambulatory outpatients were invited to complete a survey, consisting of 14 questions on: access to care, waiting time, communication and information about medication, pharmaceutical care provider (pharmacist in charge), privacy/confidentiality and unmet needs. The survey was made available to patients in paper or digital format at the pharmacist consultation, teleconsultation, medicines home delivery and pharmadrive delivery.ResultsA total of 9634 outpatients attended our ambulatory care during the study period. We carried out 1939 teleconsultations, 2194 home deliveries and 91 in-person consultations. Outpatients answered 148 surveys (1.5%). Most patients were pleased to continue picking up medication at hospital pharmacy (86%) and rated the service as good/very good. Patients considered that there was availability to listen/sympathy (99%) and privacy (96%) during the service. Information provided about medication was considered useful (89%). Waiting time was rated as appropriate (90%). A large percentage of patients were unaware of the possibility of pharmadrive (76%) and proximity dispensation (45%). Outpatients knew their pharmacist in charge in 37% of the cases and 75% had already contacted their pharmacist, 32% were not aware of the existence of a pharmacist in charge and the remaining (30%) did not have a pharmacist in charge.Conclusion and relevancePharmacists’ effort in pandemic times, implementing strategies to improve patient-centredness of care, ensured outpatients’ continuity of pharmaceutical care and medicines. In order to engage patients and improve their experience, awareness and retention of pharmacists in charge needs to increase. As improvement measures we intend to improve our outpatient care guide with more detailed information, and will also refresh pharmacist training.References and/or acknowledgementsConflict of interestNo conflict of interest