Pharmacists administering vaccines

Chinasea

Think they should be able to give you a sick cert i.e receipt also for cold & flu for free. Why do I after to pay my overpaid Doctor €65.00 to confirm that I have a cold/flu and can't go to work.

When I have the flu I go to Boots or where ever and buy a lemsip and with tighter restrictions now with regards to the selling off painkillers than this could come under this remit also.

bleg

Is it just because of the record keeping? Easily done using the software available to pharmacists, similar to MAP.

bleg

misschoo wrote: »

I've had some doctors (and nurses) literally butcher me administering vaccines/injections

Ucc student health centre?

foreverandever

How is record keeping easily done? All GPs don't use the same software in their practice and patients in a practice attend so many different GPs. Hospitals and GPs aren't even linked up electonically except for blood results

bleg

No I mean the record keeping is easily done by pharmacists.

foreverandever

Yes but it's the doctors who keep lists of chronic and high risks patients. So is it their responsibility to be ringing around pharmacists finding out who got the vaccine and who didn't?

bleg

Dunno. Do they ring the patients at home at the moment?

foreverandever

I'm not sure of individual practices but I know when the swine flu vaccine was to be given to pregnant women last year alot of doctors took it upon themselves to ring every pregnant lady in their files to come in and receive it. However there was a financial reward as well at the end of it.

bleg

So what's the problem? Going by what you say the docs can ring the pharmacy ask for a list of their patients who received the vaccine to be faxed up to them and then not have to ring those patients, thus saving them time.

foreverandever

They'll then have to enter each patient separately into their file, creating work and also who rings the patient in the first place to remind them to get the vaccine? Why should doctors have to be doing extra work for no money?

foreverandever

and should GPs be ringing every pharmacy in their catchment area once a week or once a fortnight or how often? It seems to me that the only person who'll be benefiting out of this is the pharmacist!

bleg

Well if doctors ring them at the moment to remind them then there's no problem. They (or rather their secretaries) ring the patient and the patient tells them they got it at the pharmacy. Simple.


Though I don't think doctors or their secretaries ring around their patients every winter although I could be wrong.

Unfortunately in the present economic circumstances we all have to do more for less.

bleg

foreverandever wrote: »

and should GPs be ringing every pharmacy in their catchment area once a week or once a fortnight or how often? It seems to me that the only person who'll be benefiting out of this is the pharmacist!

And the patient and taxpayer. It is all about money after all. The reason this is on the table is because the ipu looked at services offered by pharmacists in other jurisdictions and said its an opportunity to regain some of the revenue lost due to fempi.

jimdeans

surely the pharmacist takes on a "duty of care" here and will be obliged to inform the patient's GP that they gave the vaccine?

bleg

I presume that these details are being sorted behind the scenes Jim but I would expect something like that alright. Would make the most sense.

Kurtosis

jimdeans wrote: »

surely the pharmacist takes on a "duty of care" here and will be obliged to inform the patient's GP that they gave the vaccine?

How does a pharmacist's duty of care to the patient relate to informing a GP about carrying out a vaccination? I'm sure some pharmacists would perhaps give patients a letter after vaccinating them to pass onto their GP regarding the vaccination but I don't see why pharmacists should be obliged to inform GPs.

foreverandever

So we're basically saying to gps, keep doing what ye were doing before-informing patients to get their vaccine, and all the costs involved with ringing them and sending out letters, then let the patients go their pharmacist to get the vaccine and then let the gps have extra work following up all these patients, entering their notes into files and ensuring everyone who needs the vaccine has received it. Even if it means multiple phonecalls a week. And also they won't receive any money for this and in fact we'll take away some of your income. Yes that definitely sounds right. As far as i'm aware the only people complaining about the vaccine were private patients, who we're saying will not be receiving it off pharmacists for the moment anyway.

jimdeans

penguin88 wrote: »

How does a pharmacist's duty of care to the patient relate to informing a GP about carrying out a vaccination? I'm sure some pharmacists would perhaps give patients a letter after vaccinating them to pass onto their GP regarding the vaccination but I don't see why pharmacists should be obliged to inform GPs.

You may well be totally correct.

I'm just going on dodgy second hand info my medical partner says that her duty of care (she works in a hospital) involves liasing with relevant healthcare professionals after she does something. She's always said this is a seriously important part of her duty of care. So much so that she's always staying late at work doing up letters to the GP of every patient she deals with in the hospital :eek: Sometimes she'd go in to work on a day off just to spend the whole day writing letters!!

she reckons that, as well as being the professional thing to do, there would also be a legal fallout if there was a problem and she hadn't sent letters and results etc to the GP.

Kurtosis

Just for full disclosure, I'm a pharmacy intern.

foreverandever wrote: »

So we're basically saying to gps, keep doing what ye were doing before-informing patients to get their vaccine, and all the costs involved with ringing them and sending out letters, then let the patients go their pharmacist to get the vaccine and then let the gps have extra work following up all these patients, entering their notes into files and ensuring everyone who needs the vaccine has received it. Even if it means multiple phonecalls a week. And also they won't receive any money for this and in fact we'll take away some of your income. Yes that definitely sounds right. As far as i'm aware the only people complaining about the vaccine were private patients, who we're saying will not be receiving it off pharmacists for the moment anyway.

Do GPs contact all at-risk patients at the moment to ensure they get vaccinated? From a previous reply, it seemed that some GPs did this with regards to swine flu vaccination for pregnant women. Is this common practice for the seasonal flu vaccine?

GPs are still going to be providing vaccinations. Pharmacies are an additional option for patients for who it may not be convenient to attend their GP due to surgery hours etc. Pharmacists on average see patients more frequently than GPs and are better placed to identify at-risk individuals in patient groups who do not tend to visit the GP often (e.g. young males). As such, this should result in a higher vaccination rate, as has been the case in the US.

foreverandever

As far as i'm aware, most gp practices would inform their high risk patients about receiving the vaccine. I am not sure how young males falls into the high risk category for the flu vaccine though?

bleg

foreverandever wrote: »

So we're basically saying to gps, keep doing what ye were doing before-informing patients to get their vaccine, and all the costs involved with ringing them and sending out letters, then let the patients go their pharmacist to get the vaccine and then let the gps have extra work following up all these patients, entering their notes into files and ensuring everyone who needs the vaccine has received it. Even if it means multiple phonecalls a week. And also they won't receive any money for this and in fact we'll take away some of your income. Yes that definitely sounds right. As far as i'm aware the only people complaining about the vaccine were private patients, who we're saying will not be receiving it off pharmacists for the moment anyway.

There are quite a number of inconsistencies in your post, but then again you probably know this.

If you haven't gotten the point already then you probably never will. I'm done debating this with you.

jimdeans

foreverandever wrote: »

As far as i'm aware, most gp practices would inform their high risk patients about receiving the vaccine. I am not sure how young males falls into the high risk category for the flu vaccine though?

Yea, my nan gets contacted by her GP.

Slightly worried by (what appears to be) the apparent reluctance of pharmacists on the thread (except bleg) to get involved in the dissemination of info to GPs. The hostility to the idea makes more worried.

while the worries I had about treatment of allergic reactions etc have been dealt with, I'll be bringing me nan to her GP rather than pharmacist to have it done if the info isn't going to her GP.

Not sure what the poster above meant when he/she talked about seeing the patient more often than her GP. I bring me nan to her GP a good bit. When he sees her he examines her and knows her full history. When her (very helpful) pharmacist sees her, he does so to give her meds. I doubt he'd know that she had major heart surgery (which is why she's high risk I think).

foreverandever

bleg wrote: »

There are quite a number of inconsistencies in your post, but then again you probably know this.

If you haven't gotten the point already then you probably never will. I'm done debating this with you.

my question from the start is how do we ensure that the high risk patients will get their vaccine and who has the responsibility to make sure they do. Not one person has given me the answer. I never said i didn't feel pharmacists were qualified to give the vaccine, i just question the continuity of care. And i know how a gp office works and i know the efforts and expense they go to.

jimdeans

bleg wrote: »

There are quite a number of inconsistencies in your post, but then again you probably know this.

If you haven't gotten the point already then you probably never will. I'm done debating this with you.

Actually, as an uninformed pleb with a few "high risk" people as relatives, the poster you quoted is reflecting what I think has been said here.

The sequence seems to be

1) patient goes to pharmacist to get vaccine

2) patient/govt pays patient

3) it's up to the GP to find out that the patient has had the vaccine administered

4) pharmacist doesn't inform GP

Sid_Justice

Just from my own personal experience, I think it's unusual for a patient to see more than one GP practice a year, usually they attend the same one time after time. Now other patients might behave differently but my in large, I think px really attend the same practive.

I'm not sure if i could say the same about pharmacists. Like where every find one pharmacy you're almost bound to find another across the road. So for the argument that pharmacists see px more frequently in the community, how many are seeing any they could actually recognise? I#m sure loads have plenty of loyal customers but I drop into what ever pharmacist that is convenient to me at the time, where as I always attend the same GP.

angeldelight

jimdeans wrote: »

Slightly worried by (what appears to be) the apparent reluctance of pharmacists on the thread (except bleg) to get involved in the dissemination of info to GPs).

I don't think it's reluctance, but we don't know how the information will be shared. I don't think anybody is against an open exchange of information on who has been vaccinated but we don't yet have the answer to the question being asked so maybe that comes across as reluctance. The IPU are currently thrashing out the details with the HSE and once I know the answer I have no problem telling you how it is going to work

bleg

Like I said, I presume these details are being worked out behind the scenes. I'm no longer working in community pharmacy so I don't have all the answers. However something like this can be sorted very very easily, just like the record keeping issue.

Now, what has been happening in this thread is the consistent moving of the goalposts by certain posters (not you to be fair) who are ideologically opposed to pharmacists giving vaccines (for whatever reasons) and are using straw man arguments.

bleg

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Just from my own personal experience, I think it's unusual for a patient to see more than one GP practice a year, usually they attend the same one time after time. Now other patients might behave differently but my in large, I think px really attend the same practive.

I'm not sure if i could say the same about pharmacists. Like where every find one pharmacy you're almost bound to find another across the road. So for the argument that pharmacists see px more frequently in the community, how many are seeing any they could actually recognise? I#m sure loads have plenty of loyal customers but I drop into what ever pharmacist that is convenient to me at the time, where as I always attend the same GP.

When I started working in pharmacy I was amazed at the amount of loyalty out there for pharmacies/pharmacists. Couldn't get over it!

Kurtosis

foreverandever wrote: »

As far as i'm aware, most gp practices would inform their high risk patients about receiving the vaccine. I am not sure how young males falls into the high risk category for the flu vaccine though?

Young men and teenagers may suffer from a chronic illness that would classify them as high risk with regards to flu vaccination, for example diabetes. Such patients may collect medication from their pharmacy on a monthly basis. They may only attend their GP 6 monthly to renew their prescription or less frequently between clinic appointments. Carers are another group which pharmacists may see more and in many cases should be vaccinated.

If GP surgeries are only informing their high risk patients, what is wrong with pharmacies also informing their high risk patients that they should be vaccinated? Having another healthcare professional identifying at risk patients and providing another more convenient option for vaccination should provide better vaccination rates.

jimdeans

bleg wrote: »

Like I said, I presume these details are being worked out behind the scenes. I'm no longer working in community pharmacy so I don't have all the answers. However something like this can be sorted very very easily, just like the record keeping issue.

Now, what has been happening in this thread is the consistent moving of the goalposts by certain posters (not you to be fair) who are ideologically opposed to pharmacists giving vaccines (for whatever reasons) and are using straw man arguments.

I think it's reasonable to await the details, as I'm sure someone is tasked with this kind of thing.

However, we've been told that this has been going on for over a year, so there must be some kind of provisional system in place? I know boots can be a bit mercenary and I don't expect them to care about communicating with GPs, but do they have any kind of system in place?

foreverandever

penguin88 wrote: »

Young men and teenagers may suffer from a chronic illness that would classify them as high risk with regards to flu vaccination, for example diabetes.

yes young males with chronic illness should avail of the vaccine and will be informed by the gp. I have absolutely no problem with pharmacists reminding their patients to get the vaccine too, health promotion is part of the pharmacists role. My biggest and probably only question has been about continuity of care. An earlier poster just said it hasn't been decided yet but then another poster said you can already get the flu vaccine? I also don't believe it's fair to be giving gps extra work and taking away their income. If one of the reasons pharmacists are doing this is because of over worked gps then i can't really see how this is going to lessen their load. I have no problems with pharmacists wanting to increase their contribution to the community at all.

Kurtosis

Can I ask what problems in relation to continuity of care you envision arising?

bleg

jimdeans wrote: »

I think it's reasonable to await the details, as I'm sure someone is tasked with this kind of thing.

However, we've been told that this has been going on for over a year, so there must be some kind of provisional system in place? I know boots can be a bit mercenary and I don't expect them to care about communicating with GPs, but do they have any kind of system in place?

Not too sure. Although they only offer it to private patients. They used a loophole in the law to introduce it if I remember correctly and now the minister psi and imb are playing catch up.

Mercenary is a good description for them but in fairness they've broadened the agenda of the services pharmacies provide.

foreverandever

Well i already posted it a few pages back but basically i'm imagining scenarios where a patient goes to his pharmacy to fill a script (take a young male patient with asthma/diabetes so), pharmacy tells him about the new vaccine so he decides he'll get it there the next time he visits. Gp rings him to remind him about the vaccine, patient informs the gp he's getting it in the pharmacy. But he has filled his script for some time and so does not need to visit or asks his mother to pick up his next script etc. Maybe he goes in and there's a locum on that day and the locum doesn't mention it. So who has the responsibility towards the patient there? Should the pharmacist keep ringing the patient to remind him to come in or should the doctor have rang the pharmacist to see if the patient received it. And what if he collects one script at home and one script say in college. Does the pharmacist somewhere else ring the gp in his hometown to let him know he received the vaccine? Those are the kind of questions i want answered. I know myself i have accounts with at least three pharmacists depending on where i am etc

Kurtosis

foreverandever wrote: »

Well i already posted it a few pages back but basically i'm imagining scenarios where a patient goes to his pharmacy to fill a script (take a young male patient with asthma/diabetes so), pharmacy tells him about the new vaccine so he decides he'll get it there the next time he visits. Gp rings him to remind him about the vaccine, patient informs the gp he's getting it in the pharmacy. But he has filled his script for some time and so does not need to visit or asks his mother to pick up his next script etc. Maybe he goes in and there's a locum on that day and the locum doesn't mention it. So who has the responsibility towards the patient there? Should the pharmacist keep ringing the patient to remind him to come in or should the doctor have rang the pharmacist to see if the patient received it. And what if he collects one script at home and one script say in college. Does the pharmacist somewhere else ring the gp in his hometown to let him know he received the vaccine? Those are the kind of questions i want answered. I know myself i have accounts with at least three pharmacists depending on where i am etc

I can see where you're coming from, increased accessibility but patients may "fall through the cracks" as such. I am curious though, do GP surgeries currently contact all high risk patients to remind them to come in for a vaccine? And if the patients do not come in, does the surgery continue to contact them to remind them?

I can as easily see situation where a young male patient with diabetes going off to college and so not being able to get vaccinated by his own GP. Surely such a patient is more likely to be in a pharmacy when off at college than at another doctor's and so is more likely to have the opportunity to get vaccinated.

foreverandever

As far as i'm aware they do. What i think happens is the patient is sent a letter regarding the vaccine and told to make an appointment. Usually around this time of the year they have flu clinics, say on a tuesday or thurs afternoon. The patient makes an appointment for whenever suits. Then if they miss that appointment, the nurse rings up after the clinic and they can reschedule. They can get it other times if it suits too, like a saturday morning and they'll be crossed off the list of the patients to receive the vaccine. It's just if the patient says they're getting it in the pharmacist should they be crossed off that list or will the nurse keep ringing etc. I know what you mean that the patient should have more options to get the vaccine now but if they go into the pharmacy and it's busy or they're in a rush and won't stay i'm just not sure who should be following them up.

pampootie

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I'd love for someone to explain to me what community pharmacists do other than act like a shop keeper. I'm not being smart, what advice do pharmacists give? If you go in looking for codeine they'll coerce you into getting aspirin but what else? What advice can they give you on your prescription?

I'm a community pharmacist. Day to day, I dispense prescriptions, which I screen for correct doses, correct drugs, interactions between medications, and follow up with local gps if i feel any of the above are inappropriate or due to error. i provide advice to people on the best way to take their medicines, e.g. show people how to use inhalers, counsel them on what side effects to watch out for etc. some of the queries you get in community pharmacy are astonishing, and i've noticed that as the economy worsens more and more people come to the pharmacy because they just cant afford a doctor unless really necessary. I've had 3 people in the last 8 months who i've had to send straight to hospital due to side effects of their medication, all 3 were worried about it for a while but couldn't afford a dr, and eventually decided to ask a pharmacist.

like others have mentioned on this thread, i feel my skills are hugely underutilised, i loved studying for my degree so much but i only get to use a tiny fraction of what i've learned. I'll give the flu vaccine this year but i would far rather be providing MURs or minor ailment schemes, as someone already mentioned.

Kurtosis

foreverandever wrote: »

As far as i'm aware they do. What i think happens is the patient is sent a letter regarding the vaccine and told to make an appointment. Usually around this time of the year they have flu clinics, say on a tuesday or thurs afternoon. The patient makes an appointment for whenever suits. Then if they miss that appointment, the nurse rings up after the clinic and they can reschedule. They can get it other times if it suits too, like a saturday morning and they'll be crossed off the list of the patients to receive the vaccine. It's just if the patient says they're getting it in the pharmacist should they be crossed off that list or will the nurse keep ringing etc. I know what you mean that the patient should have more options to get the vaccine now but if they go into the pharmacy and it's busy or they're in a rush and won't stay i'm just not sure who should be following them up.

While it may be good practice to send out letters and repeatedly phone patients to follow-up, I doubt the majority of surgeries do this. Pharmacists can potentially inform their high risk patients of the importance of vaccination and deliver the vaccination at the same time, no need for appointments or follow-up.

One has to consider patient autonomy and responsibility also; if two or more healthcare professionals are informing patients of the need to be vaccinated and the patient still does not take any action in this respect, will further follow-ups make any difference?

I believe the number of patients who will not be vaccinated as a result of increased options, accessibility and convenience of receiving vaccinations will be greatly outweighed by the number of extra patients who will be vaccinated as a result of same. This is borne out by increased vaccination rates for at risk individuals in other jurisdictions as a result of pharmacists delivering vaccines. This is the primary outcome.

palmcut

My understanding is that the HSE is expanding the registration process for flu vaccination. The patient will be obliged to sign a consent form with either the GP or the Pharmacist.

The consent form will have to be applied for online. The patient will need to provide their PPS number and their GMS number.

If the patient has already received a vaccine, the system will not allow a second consent form to be printed. This will be the way that both the GP and the pharmacist will check whether a patient has already been vaccinated.

The pharmacist payment is being set at €15. The GP payment is currently being reviewed under FEMPI and is expected to be reduced from the current €33 per vaccination for a GMS patient.

The fee for a private patient has not been set as this would be counter to provisions in the Competition Act.

Well over 1,000 pharmacists have been trained to administer the flu vaccine. To date the HSE have still not announced the complete details of the scheme.

Pharmacists by their nature are conservative and will approach vaccination with caution. Not all of them will vaccinate this year. Many of them will wait and see how the scheme works. Pharmacy vaccination will occur more in the cities than in rural areas.

The payment may not be sufficient to entice all pharmacists to get involved. Training costs €250 to €335 every 2 years and is compulsory. Each pharmacy will be required to have 4 Anapens and other assorted equipment. Each pharmacy will have to pay for the safe disposal of syringes and needles involved in flu vaccination.
The pharmacy regulatory body (PSI) has not yet published the guidelines for pharmacists.
The Boots pharmacies have already been doing flu vaccination for over one year for private patients. They currently charge €30 per flu vaccination which includes the vaccine and it's administration.

The thinking behind the expansion of flu vaccination services to pharmacy is to increase the National uptake of the flu vaccine and consequently to reduce hospital flu admissions.
This year's flu vaccine will also include the "swine flu".

foreverandever

Thank you for answering my query!

Fraggle Rocks

Just a couple of points (I am a community pharmacist)

As regards the GP being informed and record keeping, as pointed out already, the GP will automatically know if a patient of theirs has received the vaccine (either at a pharmacy or another surgery) once they access the PCRS database enter the patient's PPS number. There will be no need for phonecalls/letters/faxes where everyone is trying to inform everyone else of who has been vaccinated. If a person receives the vaccine, it is recorded on the PCRS database, and it will be impossible for the patient to receive a second vaccine, as you will be unable to print a second consent form for that patient, and it will clearly state that this person has been vaccinated.

As regards people saying that pharmacists haven't been trained to do this, well, they have been trained. For many this will be the second time they have been trained in the administration of IM injections, CPR, using AEDs and what to do if a patient goes into anaphylaxis. We have also been fully trained in the procedure regarding informed consent, if it is appropriate for a particular patient to get a vaccine (although some of the criteria on who will be able to get it haven't been laid down by the HSE yet, e.g. children or pregnant women) and advice. If anything the procedures we will have to go through to administer a vaccine seem a lot more robust than the HSE clinic where I received my last flu vaccine.

As regards anaphylaxis, I feel fully confident that if a patient of mine went intop anaphylaxis that I would be able to respond appropriately. To be honest, I'm not sure if there is anything more a GP could do that I couldn't before the ambulance arrives. (If a patient goes into anaphylaxis, an ambulance should always be called. If someone goes into anaphylaxis in a GP surgery, they are not simply going to "fix them" them and send them home, they will be going to the hospital regardless. Last year over 4000 flu vaccines were administrated. There wasn't a single case of anaphylaxis. As Bleg has pointed out, Boots have been providing this service for a year now with no problems.

Some people have been concerned over the space in which they will be vaccinated. True, the consultation rooms in some pharmacies may be unsuitable, but in most cases they will be perfectly suitable. If you feel the area in your local pharmacy is unsuitable, simple - don't get the vaccine there. To be honest I would be very surprised if a pharmacist started giving vaccines in an unsuitable space.


I will be confident in administering vacccines, and I am certain that most of my colleagues feel the same. Some have expressed their reservations, or that they don't feel comfortable in giving the vaccine, and so they won't be providing this service. That is their choice.

Also, just about people getting the vaccine in a pharmacy where the pharmacist might not have their complete medical history - I don't know how many phonecalls I have received from various hospitals asking about patients because they don't have a clue what medication the patient is on - it works both ways. There is no centralised database where patients medical records are stored, so this may always be an issue.

TomKehoe

From the Irish Times 24 September 2011:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0924/1224304677623.html

The fee put forward for pharmacists by Dr Reilly is significantly lower than the payment made to GPs for providing this service.

GPs have been paid about €42 to administer the flu vaccine under an agreement with the State.

From the Irish Medical Times 08 September 2011:
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/09/panic-on-the-streets-of-dublin.html

Dr Ruairi Hanley wrote:

James Reilly has recently suggested that pharmacists should effectively take over the annual flu vaccine campaign. This plan was met with predictable howls of outrage from some medical quarters.

Many GPs are naturally upset at the loss of income this change would represent. Given recent GMS cutbacks, such a reaction is understandable and should be presented in such a light.

Sadly, it appears that attempts are being made to muddy the waters. Thus we have been treated to lots of waffle about pharmacists being potentially unqualified to deal with vaccinations.

Worse still, we have seen the spectre of anaphylactic reactions and tragic death raised as a possibility.

Fatal allergic response

Personally (and I am open to correction here), I am not aware of a single case in recent Irish history where a patient suffered a fatal allergic response to a flu jab.

Boots chemist provided this service to hundreds of people last year and to the best of my knowledge, no-one died.

Those who wish to protest these plans must be honest. Letting pharmacists do this is perfectly safe and people will quickly see through exaggerated concerns about ridiculously rare side effects. Minister James Reilly, as a GP and a politician, knows this well.

In my opinion, this is about the money — nothing else. Why can’t we just admit that and make our case accordingly?

TomKehoe

Fraggle Rocks wrote: »

Last year over 4000 flu vaccines were administrated. There wasn't a single case of anaphylaxis. As Bleg has pointed out, Boots have been providing this service for a year now with problems.

Last year, in excess of 750,000 flu vaccines were administered in Ireland. Your figure of 4,000 probably just relates to Boots.

The Irish Medicines Board has had 3 (yes, 3) reports of anaphylaxis related to the flu vaccine in Ireland since the year 2000, a period in which between 5,000,000 and 8,000,000 doses were administered.

Dr Galen

anaphylaxis isn't even a concern here tbh. I understand why some posters have been asking about in good faith though. The truth is that it happens that rarely ( in this scenario anyway) that most people involved in vaccination programs will never have even seen or indeed heard about it. Personally, once a pharmacist has undergone the training required, I'd have no issue with them giving me the jab.

There are issues around documentation, and record keeping/sharing that need to be ironed out, but all sides are aware of this, and in fairness it could be fairly easily sorted out.

This raises a much bigger question for pharmacists though. In nursing we've been having the debate for years about expansion of the profession and the role. Not all of what has happened I agree with tbh. I often feel that there would be much better uses of nursing skills than what is pushed forward by some in the profession. Pharmacists now need to really and properly have this discussion. I'm not sure that doling out the flu jab is the best use of all that time ye spent in college and/or working.

nesf

Dr Galen wrote: »

In nursing we've been having the debate for years about expansion of the profession and the role.

Pfft. Less of this head in the sky stuff please and get back to giving me a sponge bath God damn it!

ZYX

Fraggle Rocks wrote: »

As regards anaphylaxis, I feel fully confident that if a patient of mine went intop anaphylaxis that I would be able to respond appropriately. To be honest, I'm not sure if there is anything more a GP could do that I couldn't before the ambulance arrives. (If a patient goes into anaphylaxis, an ambulance should always be called. If someone goes into anaphylaxis in a GP surgery, they are not simply going to "fix them" them and send them home, they will be going to the hospital regardless.

I would have no problem with pharmacists or anyone else giving vaccines. However this point, that if someone has anaphylaxis an ambulance should always be called is not true.

I had a patient who had an obvious anaphylactic reaction. They recognised it themselves and told the pharmacist. The pharmacist wouldn't even give adrenaline. Luckily the patient's friend had far more sense than the pharmacist and brought him straight to the hospital. By the time he reached hospital he was unconscious but responded to treatment quickly. Almost certainly if he had headed the pharmacists advice he would have died.

Fraggle Rocks

ZYX wrote: »

I would have no problem with pharmacists or anyone else giving vaccines. However this point, that if someone has anaphylaxis an ambulance should always be called is not true.

I had a patient who had an obvious anaphylactic reaction. They recognised it themselves and told the pharmacist. The pharmacist wouldn't even give adrenaline. Luckily the patient's friend had far more sense than the pharmacist and brought him straight to the hospital. By the time he reached hospital he was unconscious but responded to treatment quickly. Almost certainly if he had headed the pharmacists advice he would have died.

I would personally always call an ambulance if it occurred, even if the patient got up after five minutes and said they were fine. It's always better to get the patient checked out in a hospital and make sure that everything is fine.

ZYX

Fraggle Rocks wrote: »

I would personally always call an ambulance if it occurred, even if the patient got up after five minutes and said they were fine. It's always better to get the patient checked out in a hospital and make sure that everything is fine.

I meant that if you wait for an ambulance the patient may die

Fraggle Rocks

ZYX wrote: »

I meant that if you wait for an ambulance the patient may die

And I meant that as well as administering Epinephrine I would be calling the ambulance and repeating the dose of Epinephrine every five minutes as required until the ambulance arrived, and taking every other measure that was necessary.

Hersheys

I'm classed as "high risk" for flu vaccine. I normally get it from my GP but to do that I need to take time off from work.

My pharmacist opens on Sundays. That would be convenient.

And I always go to the same GP and the same pharmacist (well 99 times out of 100 - if I just need paracetamol I'll go to the nearest, but if I'm filling my script or need a bit of advice regarding meds/illness I'll go to my regular pharmacist, where - and I'm still unsure if this is a good thing (!) - the pharmacist knows my name and my illness as well as my doctor) so I'd have no trouble at all going to my pharmacist to get a flu vaccine.

And my pharmacist and GP have a great professional relationship so I'm sure they'd communicate back if I got the vaccine in the chemist.