ABSTRACT
Introduction It has long been felt that many contributions made by the ICU Pharmacy team, are not well showcased by the yearly regional network multi-speciality contributions audit. Themes specific to ICU are diluted amongst Trust and region wide data, and valuable learning for the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) is subsequently overlooked. Objective(s): The aims of this project were to: * Develop and pilot a MicrosoftTM Access © database for the ICU pharmacy team to record significant contributions. * Enable the production of reports to the ICU Quality & Safety board, to raise awareness, disseminate concerns, and influence future quality improvement projects. * Provide examples to contribute to the training of the whole MDT. * Generate evidence of team effectiveness and encourage further investment. * Provide team members with a means to recall contributions, for revalidation, appraisal, prescribing re-affirmation and framework mapping. Method(s): * A database was built with a user-friendly data-entry form to prevent overwriting. Fields were agreed with peers who would be using the database. * The team were invited to voluntarily enter their contributions which they thought added value and provided useful learning. * The pilot phase ceased with the emergence of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant, due to staffing pressures and surge planning. Result(s): * Between 12/07/2021 and 25/11/2021, a total of 211 contributions were recorded. * Pharmacists entered 88.6% and a single technician entered 11.4% of these. * Independent Prescribing was utilised in 52.13% of contributions, and deprescribing in 25.12%. * Figure 1 demonstrates the contributions by drug group * The top 5 drugs associated with contributions were: ? Dalteparin ? Vancomycin ? Voriconazole ? Meropenem ? Co-trimoxazole * Treatment optimisation was an outcome for 76.3% of all contributions. Figure 2 stratifies these by type. Contributions. * Drug suitability was a cause for intervention in 12.8% of all contributions, encompassing allergies, contraindications, cautions and interactions and routes. * Medicines reconciliation accounted for 17.54% of all contributions, which almost half were Technician led. Admission was the most common stage to intervene (81.08%), followed by transcription. * Of all contributions, 37.91% were classified as patient safety incidents. Reassuringly 76.25% of these were prevented by the Pharmacy team. Themes have been extracted from these incidents and are presented in Table 1. Conclusion(s): PROTECTED-UK1 demonstrated the value pharmacists contribute to the quality and safety of patient care on ICU. Studies of similar quality and scale including Pharmacy Technicians are lacking, but even in this pilot study, it is evident how important their input is. Independent prescribing is a fundamental and well utilised part of our ICU Pharmacist skillset, supporting the GPICS2 recommendation that ICU pharmacists should be encouraged to become prescribers. Compiling a team interventions database is a useful tool to highlight local priority areas for guideline development;training;and ensuring that appropriate decision support is built into electronic prescribing systems. To improve the usefulness of the data, further stratification of contributions according to the Eadon Criteria3 may be worthwhile, to expand its use as a medication safety thermometer for ICU.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Older people face numerous challenges and safety risks when managing multiple medicines. They are required to cope with complex and changing regimens and co-ordinate input from multiple healthcare professionals. If not well managed, medicines can cause harm, and older people are more susceptible to errors. Some older people can devise and implement strategies to manage their medicines, e.g. creating checklists, ensuring timely supplies, solving problems, and seeking help (1). However, no interventions address the multiple tasks polypharmacy patients must perform to safely manage their regimens. Aim(s): To develop an intervention to support medicines self-management for older people living with frailty and polypharmacy using experience-based co-design (EBCD) (2). Method(s): Following video or audio-recorded qualitative interviews with 32 older people taking 5 or more medicines, a 'trigger film' of patients' medicines management experiences was produced and used during EBCD to facilitate priority setting. Separate meetings were held (1) with 16 staff (2 GPs, 4 GP practice administrators, 4 GP practice pharmacists, 1 practice lead, 2 senior nurses, 2 pharmacy technicians, 1 community pharmacist) and (2) with 13 patients and 2 family members, followed by a joint meeting with 8 older people and 9 staff where a shared set of three priorities was agreed. Two subsequent co-design workshops with 6 patients, 2 family members and 7 staff developed three candidate interventions. Workshop 1 explored key themes from the trigger film to develop solutions. Workshop 2 reviewed solutions and further developed design ideas. Intervention components were merged and those addressing patient safety challenges were retained to form the prototype intervention. Ethical approval was obtained for the interviews included in the trigger film, but not required for EBCD. EBCD meetings and workshops were conducted as quality improvement: people involved were collaborators, personal information was not captured, discussions were not recorded or analysed. Result(s): Co-design priorities were to support patients in: day-to-day practical medicines management;understanding the wider medicines management system;communication with healthcare teams. The three solutions were: a quick-start guide to managing multiple medicines including talking about medicines and managing new routines;tips and tricks to support day-to-day management, including planning and adherence tools;a tool supporting preparation for medication reviews and asking questions about medicines. After merging intervention components and identifying those addressing medicinesself- management patient safety challenges, five areas were retained for the prototype intervention: checking what you get;keeping on top of supplies;monitoring how you take your medicines;times when problems are more likely;and how do I know if I need help? Discussion/Conclusion: Through EBCD patients and staff worked together to improve people's experiences of managing medicines and to enhance safety. The prototype intervention addresses five areas where older people with complex medicines regimens require support. The intervention requires feasibility testing and subsequent robust evaluation. Strengths and limitations: * A variety of staff roles joined the co-design, offering multiple different perspectives on medicines management * EBCD meetings and workshops were run online to avoid Covid infections. This may have excluded older people with no access to internet.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Pharmacy technicians began administering immunizations in Idaho State as part of a new administrative rule in 2017. Rapid expansion of pharmacy technicians as immunizers occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies demonstrate the success of having technicians as immunizers but, the opinions of technicians themselves about immunizing have not been explored. Methods: Key informant interviews were conducted to evaluate the opinions of certified and immunization-trained pharmacy technicians in the State of Idaho. A key informant interview script was utilized and included questions regarding satisfaction with current position, feelings about responsibility in the pharmacy, confidence administering immunizations to patients, changes patient interactions after becoming immunization-trained, support in the pharmacy, and opinion about expansion of immunization training for technicians to other states. The aim of this research was to gather the opinions of pharmacy technicians regarding the impact of administering immunizations on job satisfaction and career outlook. Results: Fifteen pharmacy technicians were interviewed. All participants believed their role as immunizers improved job satisfaction and feelings of being a valuable part of the pharmacy team. Technicians also believed being able to immunize aided in pharmacy workflow, decreased wait time for immunizations at their respective pharmacies, and increased the number of immunizations being administered. Respondents also believed technicians should be allowed to administer immunizations nation-wide but also felt strongly that the decision to immunize should be up to each individual pharmacy technician. Conclusion: Immunizing technicians in this study believe that this advanced role has had a positive impact on their job satisfaction, feeling valued in the workplace, and likelihood of staying in their current position. Immunizing has also led to positive engagement with patients and beliefs that they are providing an impactful service to their communities.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Injectable medicines are increasingly used to manage risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) events, such as PCSK-9 inhibitors in dyslipidaemia and GLP-1 agonists in diabetes. However, there is a paucity of data around the administrative and clinical practicalities when using these injectables, and limited information on patient and healthcare professionals' perceptions. Purpose(s): To identify the facilitators and barriers on the use of injectable therapies with CV benefits by undertaking interviews with patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Method(s): Interviews were conducted via telephone and using MS Teams due to Covid-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom (London and Leeds) and Italy (Rome and Milan) in 2021. Coding was undertaken using NVivo and thematic analysis performed. Result(s): A total of 56 patients were interviewed: 30 in the U.K. (mean age 66 yrs, 60% male) and 26 patients in Italy (mean age 63 yrs, 80% male) and 11 caregivers (mean age 59 yrs, 73% female). A total of 38 HCPs were interviewed, 19 in each country and composed of physicians (n=18), pharmacists (n=10), nurses (n=9) and pharmacy technician (n=1). Three distinct themes were identified: (i) Organisational and governance issues - relating to prescribing restrictions and availability of the drugs locally (PCSK9i are initiated and supplied from hospitals) and lack of communication between hospital and primary care setting;(ii) Clinical issues around HCPs' skills and experience - including: Lack of experience with these injectables, lack of time to provide education to patients and caregivers, therapeutic inertia (HCPs not adopting a change in practice despite the evidence or due to bureaucratic restrictions) as well as lack of knowledge on long-term effects, and finally (iii) Patient-related issues - relating to behaviours and beliefs such as reluctance about using injectable therapies, and lack of education about these injectables in terms of indications/clinical benefits for use. Despite some differences in the prescribing of these injectables in the two countries, the analysis captured similar facilitators and barriers. Facilitators included prior use of injectables (e.g. insulin), and the ability to reach a clinical target of lower cholesterol by having just a one shot . HCPs stated that access to rapid pathology tests would aid uptake of injectables with CV benefit as well as having educational tools on these injectables in practice. Conclusion(s): This qualitative study identified barriers to initiation, continuation, and adherence with injectable therapies with CV benefits but also highlighted areas where changes can be made especially around education and support for patients and HCPs.
ABSTRACT
Background: Dr Gray's Hospital Elgin provides an outpatient chemotherapy service as a satelite unit to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (65 miles away). Treatment is ordered at Dr Gray's by a suitably trained and experienced clinical pharmacist, pending patient blood test results. Purpose(s): The COVID-19 pandemic has brought with it many challenges. Anticipated staff shortages, coupled with the complete removal of shielded staff from the department, have necessitated changes to normal working practices. Method(s): Remote access to the NHS Grampian network was enabled for a pharmacist, working at home on an NHS Grampian device. Subsequently it was possible to access Chemocare, the chemotherapy prescribing and administration system, and Trakcare, the electronic patient records system. Following patient toxicity screening and reporting of their blood test results, the Macmillan nurses authorise the prescription, allowing final verification by the pharmacist. The technician then accuracy checks the chemotherapy and releases it for delivery to the unit, ready for administration to the patient. Result(s): The clinical pharmacy service to the outpatient chemotherapy clinic has been safely maintained by an appropriately qualified pharmacist, while minimising the level of input required from pharmacy technicians. Conclusion(s): There have been minimal alterations to the service. This has been possible through small adaptations to access existing electronic resources, and frequent communication between the pharmacist and technician. Through full utilisation of remote access to NHS systems it has been possible to implement this alteration to service whilst maintaining at all times patient confidentiality and full professional accountability.
ABSTRACT
This article describes the workforce and educational challenges faced by pharmaconomists in Denmark as a consequence of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Danish pharmacies, pharmaconomists make up the majority of the staff. They hold a higher level of qualification than the general European pharmacy technician, more comparable to that of a Bachelor's degree. In the community pharmacies, pharmaconomists worked long hours and faced new questions and a change in behaviour by the public due to the pandemic. An emergency agreement between The Danish Association of Pharmaconomists and the Association of Danish Pharmacies made flexible planning possible, and guidelines with recommendations meant that most community pharmacies ended up introducing safety measures. In hospitals, pharmaconomists were directly engaged in deciding which kinds of medicine to stock up on to help the COVID-19 patients as they were admitted to hospital. A high level of cooperation and the slashing of red tape made things run relatively smooth. The training of pharmaconomist students went online in spring of 2020, as did exams. It required planning, as did the return to physical school activities as well as CPE in the autumn of 2020. Copyright © 2020 FIP.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Transplant recipients are at increased risk of infectious complications from vaccine-preventable diseases. This study aimed to evaluate using a pharmacy technician to provide routine childhood immunizations during kidney transplant or heart transplant clinic to improve immunization rates. Method(s): Patients seen in our pediatric kidney or heart transplant clinics between August 2021 and November 2021 were included. Patient vaccine records were screened by the pharmacy technician, under transplant pharmacist supervision, prior to clinic visits to identify needed immunizations. Recommendations were based on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American Society of Transplantation (AST) guidelines for vaccination of solid organ transplant candidates and recipients. The pharmacy technician contacted parents before clinic to discuss in clinic vaccination administration whenever possible. With verbal consent, the pharmacy technician submitted a vaccine prescription to the hospital's outpatient pharmacy, acquired the vaccine from the pharmacy, and administered the vaccine during clinic under the supervision of an immunization-certified pharmacist. All vaccines were entered into the Utah State Immunization Information System Registry. Result(s): Prior to initiation of this program, vaccines were rarely administered in clinic. During the 4-month study period, a total of 168 patients were screened (86 kidney transplant recipients, 82 heart transplant recipients), with 49 (29%) fully vaccinated. A total of 47 patients received vaccines during the study period (22 kidney transplant recipients, 25 heart transplant recipients) with 89 vaccine doses administered. The most frequently administered vaccines were SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and meningococcal (Table 1). No adverse events were recorded. Conclusion(s): Utilizing a pharmacy technician certified in immunization administration increased the number of vaccines administered to pediatric kidney and heart transplant recipients. Transplant programs who adopt a pharmacy technician immunization program in the clinic setting may benefit from close collaboration with an outpatient pharmacy.
ABSTRACT
In response to the increased demand for healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act amendments and guidance authorized pharmacy technicians, who are not otherwise authorized in their state, to administer the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)-recommended immunizations and COVID-19 vaccines under pharmacist order. Subsequently, many pharmacies nationwide have expanded technician duties to include immunization administration. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the attitudes and experiences associated with technician-administered immunizations among community pharmacists and technicians. The cross-sectional study evaluated the primary endpoint through the completion of anonymous surveys containing peer-reviewed questionnaires. Pharmacy technicians and their supervising pharmacists were selected to complete the survey at a grocery chain's pharmacies located in five states across the Northeast if they completed the immunization program and administered at least one immunization. Surveys were drafted using Microsoft Forms and results were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Chi-squared tests were utilized for comparing categorical variables between groups. A total of 268 survey responses were obtained; 171 responses came from pharmacists and 97 responses came from immunization-certified technicians. Most pharmacists and pharmacy technicians responded that technicians could safely administer vaccines (87.1% and 96.9%, respectively) and competently process and bill vaccine services (90.6% and 99.0%, respectively). In addition, both participant populations responded that technician-administered vaccines improved the workflow of vaccine services (76.6% and 82.5%, respectively) without increasing the likelihood of vaccine errors (56.1% and 78.3%, respectively). When compared with technicians, fewer pharmacists were confident in a technician's ability to competently prepare vaccines (63.7% vs. 91.8%; p < 0.001). A statistically significant association was observed between responses regarding an efficient process for immunizing patients and the likelihood of technician vaccination errors (χ2 = 14.36; p < 0.01). Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians responded that technicians competently administer immunizations and should participate in more patient-care duties. Multiple states are enacting legislation to include technician vaccine administration as a permanent component of their scope of practice.