{"title":"药剂师通过纳入药剂师主导的住院病人机会性疫苗接种干预措施对肺炎球菌疫苗接种率的影响","authors":"Tinh Nguyen BPharm, GradCertPharmPrac, Patrick Lam BPharm, GradCertPharmPrac, MClinPharm, MHlthServMt, FSHP","doi":"10.1002/jppr.1891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Pneumococcal disease continues to be a large source of morbidity and mortality despite the availability of effective prevention via immunisation and treatment measures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the impact of a pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient pneumococcal vaccination intervention on overall 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (13vPCV) rates in eligible hospitalised subacute patients, aged 70 years and above.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>This study was a pre- and post-intervention study conducted across two study sites at Monash Health, a large metropolitan health service in Victoria, Australia. Phase 1 (pre-intervention, August–October 2022) involved auditing the vaccine-eligibility of patients on admission and subsequent administration during inpatient stay. Phase 2 (intervention phase, October–December 2022) implemented the pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient pneumococcal vaccine intervention. Following screening, identified vaccine-eligible patients were recommended to the treating physician via verbal discussion and Microsoft Teams for consideration of vaccination administration in hospital. The proportion of eligible patients vaccinated was compared between the pre-intervention and intervention groups. This project was exempt for ethics approval due to the local policy requirements that constitute research by the Monash Health Human and Research Ethics Committee (Reference no: RES-22-0000-454Q). The justification for this ethics exemption was as follows: the project complies with the National Health and Medical Research Council's <i>Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities</i>; auditing the percentage of vaccine-eligible and non-vaccinated patients did not require written consent per local requirements; and it is standard practice to obtain verbal consent, followed by documentation on electronic medical records, for inpatient vaccinations. Informed consent was obtained from participants via verbal consent after the distribution of written medical information on the 13vPCV, as well as verbal information provided by the medical team.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 360 patients were included in the study. Overall, 139 (77.2%) patients in the pre-intervention and 143 (79.4%) patients in the intervention phase were eligible for vaccination (non-vaccinated with age indication). The proportion of patients receiving inpatient 13vPCV was higher in the intervention group compared to the pre-intervention group (43.4 vs 2.2%, p < 0.001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The results indicate that incorporating a pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient pneumococcal vaccination intervention can significantly increase pneumococcal vaccination in hospital.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16795,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmacist impact on pneumococcal vaccination rates through incorporation of pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient vaccination intervention\",\"authors\":\"Tinh Nguyen BPharm, GradCertPharmPrac, Patrick Lam BPharm, GradCertPharmPrac, MClinPharm, MHlthServMt, FSHP\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jppr.1891\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Pneumococcal disease continues to be a large source of morbidity and mortality despite the availability of effective prevention via immunisation and treatment measures.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>To assess the impact of a pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient pneumococcal vaccination intervention on overall 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (13vPCV) rates in eligible hospitalised subacute patients, aged 70 years and above.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study was a pre- and post-intervention study conducted across two study sites at Monash Health, a large metropolitan health service in Victoria, Australia. Phase 1 (pre-intervention, August–October 2022) involved auditing the vaccine-eligibility of patients on admission and subsequent administration during inpatient stay. Phase 2 (intervention phase, October–December 2022) implemented the pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient pneumococcal vaccine intervention. Following screening, identified vaccine-eligible patients were recommended to the treating physician via verbal discussion and Microsoft Teams for consideration of vaccination administration in hospital. The proportion of eligible patients vaccinated was compared between the pre-intervention and intervention groups. This project was exempt for ethics approval due to the local policy requirements that constitute research by the Monash Health Human and Research Ethics Committee (Reference no: RES-22-0000-454Q). The justification for this ethics exemption was as follows: the project complies with the National Health and Medical Research Council's <i>Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities</i>; auditing the percentage of vaccine-eligible and non-vaccinated patients did not require written consent per local requirements; and it is standard practice to obtain verbal consent, followed by documentation on electronic medical records, for inpatient vaccinations. Informed consent was obtained from participants via verbal consent after the distribution of written medical information on the 13vPCV, as well as verbal information provided by the medical team.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 360 patients were included in the study. Overall, 139 (77.2%) patients in the pre-intervention and 143 (79.4%) patients in the intervention phase were eligible for vaccination (non-vaccinated with age indication). The proportion of patients receiving inpatient 13vPCV was higher in the intervention group compared to the pre-intervention group (43.4 vs 2.2%, p < 0.001).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The results indicate that incorporating a pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient pneumococcal vaccination intervention can significantly increase pneumococcal vaccination in hospital.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jppr.1891\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jppr.1891","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景 尽管有通过免疫接种和治疗措施进行有效预防的方法,但肺炎球菌疾病仍然是发病率和死亡率的主要来源。 目的 评估以药剂师为主导的住院病人肺炎球菌疫苗接种干预措施对符合条件的 70 岁及以上亚急性住院病人接种 13 价肺炎球菌结合疫苗 (13vPCV) 的总体比例的影响。 方法 本研究是一项干预前和干预后研究,在澳大利亚维多利亚州的大型医疗服务机构莫纳什卫生院的两个研究点进行。第一阶段(干预前,2022 年 8 月至 10 月)包括审核患者入院时的疫苗接种资格以及住院期间的后续接种情况。第二阶段(干预阶段,2022 年 10 月至 12 月)实施由药剂师主导的住院病人肺炎球菌疫苗机会性干预。筛查后,通过口头讨论和 Microsoft Teams 向主治医生推荐符合疫苗接种条件的患者,供其考虑在住院期间接种疫苗。比较了干预前和干预后两组符合条件的患者接种疫苗的比例。由于莫纳什卫生部人类与研究伦理委员会(Monash Health Human and Research Ethics Committee,简称 "伦理委员会",参考编号:RES-22-0000-454Q)对构成研究的当地政策要求,本项目免于伦理审批。获得伦理豁免的理由如下:该项目符合国家健康与医学研究委员会的《质量保证与评估活动中的伦理考虑因素》;根据当地要求,审核符合接种条件和未接种疫苗的患者比例不需要书面同意;住院病人接种疫苗的标准做法是先获得口头同意,然后在电子病历上进行记录。在分发有关 13vPCV 的书面医疗信息以及医疗团队提供的口头信息后,通过口头同意获得参与者的知情同意。 结果 共有 360 名患者参与了研究。总体而言,干预前和干预阶段分别有 139 名(77.2%)和 143 名(79.4%)患者符合接种条件(未接种但有年龄指征)。与干预前相比,干预组接受住院 13vPCV 的患者比例更高(43.4% vs 2.2%,p < 0.001)。 结论 结果表明,由药剂师主导的住院病人肺炎球菌疫苗接种机会性干预措施能显著提高医院的肺炎球菌疫苗接种率。
Pharmacist impact on pneumococcal vaccination rates through incorporation of pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient vaccination intervention
Background
Pneumococcal disease continues to be a large source of morbidity and mortality despite the availability of effective prevention via immunisation and treatment measures.
Aim
To assess the impact of a pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient pneumococcal vaccination intervention on overall 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (13vPCV) rates in eligible hospitalised subacute patients, aged 70 years and above.
Method
This study was a pre- and post-intervention study conducted across two study sites at Monash Health, a large metropolitan health service in Victoria, Australia. Phase 1 (pre-intervention, August–October 2022) involved auditing the vaccine-eligibility of patients on admission and subsequent administration during inpatient stay. Phase 2 (intervention phase, October–December 2022) implemented the pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient pneumococcal vaccine intervention. Following screening, identified vaccine-eligible patients were recommended to the treating physician via verbal discussion and Microsoft Teams for consideration of vaccination administration in hospital. The proportion of eligible patients vaccinated was compared between the pre-intervention and intervention groups. This project was exempt for ethics approval due to the local policy requirements that constitute research by the Monash Health Human and Research Ethics Committee (Reference no: RES-22-0000-454Q). The justification for this ethics exemption was as follows: the project complies with the National Health and Medical Research Council's Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities; auditing the percentage of vaccine-eligible and non-vaccinated patients did not require written consent per local requirements; and it is standard practice to obtain verbal consent, followed by documentation on electronic medical records, for inpatient vaccinations. Informed consent was obtained from participants via verbal consent after the distribution of written medical information on the 13vPCV, as well as verbal information provided by the medical team.
Results
A total of 360 patients were included in the study. Overall, 139 (77.2%) patients in the pre-intervention and 143 (79.4%) patients in the intervention phase were eligible for vaccination (non-vaccinated with age indication). The proportion of patients receiving inpatient 13vPCV was higher in the intervention group compared to the pre-intervention group (43.4 vs 2.2%, p < 0.001).
Conclusion
The results indicate that incorporating a pharmacist-led opportunistic inpatient pneumococcal vaccination intervention can significantly increase pneumococcal vaccination in hospital.
期刊介绍:
The purpose of this document is to describe the structure, function and operations of the Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, the official journal of the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA). It is owned, published by and copyrighted to SHPA. However, the Journal is to some extent unique within SHPA in that it ‘…has complete editorial freedom in terms of content and is not under the direction of the Society or its Council in such matters…’. This statement, originally based on a Role Statement for the Editor-in-Chief 1993, is also based on the definition of ‘editorial independence’ from the World Association of Medical Editors and adopted by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.