Assessing the impact of a pharmacy-provided personalized vaccination recommendation on immunization rates of adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents should receive timely doses of recommended vaccinations. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination approval for adolescents presented an opportunity for community pharmacists to address gaps in adolescent immunization schedules. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research were to (1) identify adolescent immunization gaps, (2) identify number of patients receiving recommended vaccination(s) at the community pharmacy, and (3) determine how many vaccinations were administered after the intervention. METHODS: Three pharmacies conducted the prospective intervention. Adolescents aged 11-17 years initiating the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination series were eligible to receive a personalized vaccination recommendation (PVR), which included up to 3 other vaccinations. State immunization information systems were assessed after dose 1 of the COVID-19 vaccine to create the recommendation(s) and reassessed 6 months after providing the PVR for accepted recommendations. Patient demographics and number of vaccinations administered were assessed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 225 adolescents who received COVID-19 vaccine dose 1, 74.7%, 75.1%, and 83.1% were indicated to receive tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap), meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY), or human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, respectively. Thirty-three (14.7%) adolescents were up to date on all 3 vaccinations assessed. Of the 225 adolescents, 180 returned to the same location for COVID-19 vaccine dose 2 and received a PVR. Forty-two caregivers reported that their adolescent previously received 1 or more of the recommended vaccinations, indicating that state immunization information systems were inaccurate. Six months after the PVRs were given, 24 vaccinations had been administered. CONCLUSIONS: Most adolescents presenting for a COVID-19 vaccine were indicated, according to state immunization information systems, to receive at least 1 additional vaccination. After pharmacist-provided PVR and education, vaccine uptake occurred. Considering caregiver-reported inaccuracies, pharmacists should be cognizant of potential discrepancies when providing PVRs. In addition, this study highlights the value of a state immunization information system.

Vaccination approval literacy and its effects on intention to receive future COVID-19 immunization.

BACKGROUND: Before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine release, polls showed only 50% of Americans had intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine hesitancy may result from a lack of confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy. More research is needed to identify whether knowledge of vaccine approval processes relates to vaccination intentions. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate participants' knowledge regarding COVID-19 and vaccine approval processes, (2) evaluate participants' intentions to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and (3) compare participants' knowledge assessment results with COVID-19 vaccine intentions. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to patients participating in a pharmacist-led chronic disease state management program. The 22-item questionnaire assessed demographic information and evaluated the participant's knowledge and vaccine intentions. Data were analyzed with an a priori alpha value of 0.05. RESULTS: Nearly all participants answered correctly on questions pertaining to COVID-19 infection (n = 92, 93%), COVID-19 symptoms (n = 96, 96%), and the Food and Drug Administration's roles in vaccine approval processes (n = 92, 92%). Participants scored lower on questions involving the differing requirements between clinical trial phases (n = 20, 21%) and vaccine safety in the United States (n = 51, 53%). Most participants (n = 54, 55.1%) did not believe the trials were taking too long to produce a vaccine, but 40.4% of the participants (n = 40) believed the vaccine was approved too quickly. More than half of the participants (n = 55, 56.1%) desired more information on how vaccines get approved in the United States. Participants who scored higher on the knowledge assessment were more likely to have a plan to receive the vaccine (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate the influence knowledge has on intentions to receive vaccines and may aid health care providers in their attempts to promote vaccinations.

Veterinary prescription errors in a community pharmacy setting: A retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacies are poised to see more veterinary prescriptions as a result of increased pet ownership especially during the coronavirus disease 19 pandemic. Concern has been raised about the lack of veterinary pharmacy training that community pharmacists receive, but no studies have evaluated the actual prevalence of errors in veterinary prescriptions including the prevalence of prescription writing errors. OBJECTIVES: This study identifies the prevalence of errors in veterinary prescriptions at independent community pharmacies. METHODS: An electronic form was used to ensure required information was pulled from the pharmacy software systems in a consistent manner. Information was pulled from the hard copy image and the prescription label corresponding to that fill. Prescribing trends, such as species and errors, were assessed using descriptive statistics for the overall sample. Error comparisons between written and verbal prescriptions and between weight-based and nonweight-based prescriptions were assessed using chi-square and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Weight, although not legally required but clinically necessary for evaluation of veterinary prescriptions, was omitted from 97.8% of prescriptions. When evaluating the prevalence of errors between handwritten and verbal prescriptions, it was more likely to see errors in prescriptions handwritten by the veterinarian (105 of 119; 88%) than verbal prescriptions (257 of 389; 66%). Conversely, handwritten prescriptions were less likely to omit the required Drug Enforcement Agency number on controlled substance prescriptions. CONCLUSION: Based on the number of errors seen in both handwritten and verbal prescriptions, emphasis should be placed on training pharmacists to be competent in clinically evaluating veterinary prescriptions and training veterinarians on handwriting prescriptions to include both legally and clinically required information needed before dispensing.