Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The value to public health outcomes of pharmacist-administered vaccinations is undeniable and the numbers speak for themselves. Australia's first pharmacist vaccination pilot in Queensland (QPIP) saw over 35 000 vaccinations administered to adults in community pharmacies in just over 2 years. The overwhelmingly positive uptake of this service, and consistently positive feedback from patients after the first year (QPIP1), saw the pilot extended from influenza vaccinations to include pertussis and measles vaccinations. The data collected during the pilot paved the way for pharmacist-administered vaccinations across the whole of Australia. Being a pharmacist was traditionally considered, and in many instances still is, a very ‘hands off’ profession. Only 3 years ago, most pharmacists would never have dreamed of being able to vaccinate. Yet who would have thought that simply penetrating someone's skin with a sharp metal object would so significantly change their relationship and trust in you? Certainly, the success of the pilot was due to the trust the community places in pharmacists, as well as pharmacists' accessibility, as key healthcare professionals. In the QPIP pilot, almost 14% of patients had never had an influenza vaccination before, and another 15% indicated they would not have received an influenza vaccine if the QPIP service was not available. This indicates pharmacists have an important role to play in increasing the uptake of vaccines in the community, particularly in reaching people who would not have otherwise been vaccinated. This is also especially important in rural, regional or remote regions where access to healthcare services is more difficult. Consistent with findings from QPIP1, the vast majority of people in QPIP2 were also happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future (99.4%), and would recommend the QPIP service to other people (99.5%). Patients applauded the convenience and accessibility of the pharmacist in community pharmacies. The fact that they could receive a vaccination without an appointment was seen as a positive by patients. The impact pharmacists can have on increasing the overall vaccination rates in the community through accessibility alone must be recognised. These figures are not unique to Australia, as similar statistics have been noted in other jurisdictions around the world where pharmacists are immunisers, e.g. Canada, United Kingdom, United States, and New Zealand.1-5 The ability of pharmacists to safely and effectively administer injectable medication and manage adverse drug reactions, points to an opportunity for pharmacists to further contribute to delivering public health services beyond that of influenza vaccinations. This is of particular importance as suboptimal uptake of vaccinations is an ongoing issue in many areas of the community (e.g. at-risk groups), and an expansion of pharmacist vaccination services will help to achieve more effective herd immunity.6 Pharmacists can help to increase the uptake of other vaccines, such as for human papilloma virus (HPV), hepatitis A and/or B, adults who require catch-up or booster vaccines, travel vaccines, and also those with gaps in their childhood immunisation record. However, the opportunity for wider delivery of healthcare services to people in the community extends to that beyond vaccinations per se. These include application of our administration skills too, e.g. depot injections (such as contraception, anti-psychotics), vitamin B12 injections, and possibly in patients' homes, e.g. antibiotic infusions/home IV. So the value for pharmacists as immunisers is clear. As a profession, it is time for pharmacists to roll up our sleeves and ask, what's next?
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».