ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: We previously reported that pharmacists working in pharmacies don't have enough knowledge and enough experience teaching anaphylaxis (An) and EpiPen use. We administered a questionnaire survey to pharmacists with experience handling EpiPen prescriptions. We investigated the relationship between the questionnaire results and the factors in the pharmacists' background regarding the explanation and guidance to patients. RESULTS: The percentage of pharmacists working in pharmacies who provided guidance using visual information and demonstrations was insufficient. Moreover, this figure decreased after the second guidance session. Objective confirmation of patient understanding was also insufficient. The results indicated that self-examination and participation in drug information sessions were important background factors for pharmacists who provided detailed guidance to patients. DISCUSSION: For appropriate long-term management of their condition, An patients must master the EpiPen technique. Pharmacists' guidance plays a critical role in this regard. A support system should be established for proper instruction of pharmacy patients by improving pharmacists' self-education and other educational opportunities.
Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , Patient Education as Topic , Pharmacists , Humans , Anaphylaxis/drug therapy , Surveys and Questionnaires , Epinephrine/administration & dosage , Female , Male , Adult , Middle AgedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Anaphylactic shock is a serious and life-threatening condition, and affected patients should be quickly and effectively treated with an EpiPen. Although the correct use of an EpiPen is greatly affected by a user's proficiency level and the instructions accompanying the EpiPen, there has been almost no investigation into the knowledge of the EpiPen and the actual situation of the accompanying instructions for use. Therefore, we conducted this nationwide survey to elucidate these issues. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted among pharmacists registered as members of the system of a research company outside the university and working at pharmacies with experience in handling EpiPen prescriptions. RESULTS: Many of the pharmacists surveyed knew that the EpiPen is the first-line treatment for anaphylactic shock. However, they did not have sufficient knowledge of administration routes and candidates for second-line treatment. Both their occasions and experiences of dealing of EpiPen were found to be low. CONSIDERATION: It is desirable to learn at conferences regarding allergology/clinical allergy and seminars for medical professionals including pharmacists in order to acquire the skills and knowledge to consult with patients with allergic diseases, including action plans presented by doctors in preparation for recurrence of anaphylaxis.
