Pharmacists administering vaccines

smtdos

Guys, how do ye all feel about this?

Pharmacists as a group are eager to expand their role in the community.

1100 pharmacists have been fully trained in administering the seasonal flu vaccine on the HSE's recommendations.

Will the general public trust a pharmacist with this duty or prefer the GP?

How do the GP's on here feel about it?

Rebel021

No problem with a pharmacist doing it.
Fully trained and would free up doctors surgeries.

opinion guy

smtdos wrote: »

Guys, how do ye all feel about this?

Pharmacists as a group are eager to expand their role in the community.

1100 pharmacists have been fully trained in administering the seasonal flu vaccine on the HSE's recommendations.

Will the general public trust a pharmacist with this duty or prefer the GP?

How do the GP's on here feel about it?

Don't nurses normally do it for the GP's anyhow ???

Absolutely pharmacists should be able to do it. Why not ?

kelle

I would love if that role was extended to pharmacists!

Would this extend later to children's vaccinations?

smtdos

The current round of training is for seasonal flu only.

There was talk of it being extended to Hep B and S. Pneumoniae in the coming year. No talk of childrens vaccines.

For the time being I expect pharmacists will have to refer children/immunocompromised and pregnant women to the GP. This still has to be ironed out legally.

kdowling

As a pharmacist i welcome this move.
We have a vast amount of knowledge that is currently under utilised by the HSE.
Expanding the pharmacists role makes perfect sense.

jimdeans

kdowling wrote: »

As a pharmacist i welcome this move.
We have a vast amount of knowledge that is currently under utilised by the HSE.
Expanding the pharmacists role makes perfect sense.

I agree. But does this knowledge extend to practical procedures like this?

I know when I get my flu shot the medic has the bag with all the bells and whistles and can deal with it if I keel over. Not that I think it happens much.

I'm just wondering which component of the pharmacists' knowledge base is being under utilised by not allowing them to administer vaccines?

nesf

Seems like a sensible move on the face of it. Pharmacists with some extra training should be more than capable of doing this safely.

kellso81

Pharmacists are currently undergoing the supplementary training required for the provision of the vaccines at their own expense, dealing with the legal issues, issues of consent, when it is and isn't suitable and how to deal with any rare anaphylactic reaction. They will be fully trained and capable of delivering the service, providing ease of access to many patients and taking a bit of strain of the GPs over the winter period

RobFowl

kellso81 wrote: »

Pharmacists are currently undergoing the supplementary training required for the provision of the vaccines at their own expense, dealing with the legal issues, issues of consent, when it is and isn't suitable and how to deal with any rare anaphylactic reaction. They will be fully trained and capable of delivering the service, providing ease of access to many patients and taking a bit of strain cash off the GPs over the winter period

FYP

bleg

The only people I've heard complaining about this are doctors.

Sid_Justice

If pharmacists can do it why can't teachers?

A nurse is trained in a hospital and has a greater deal of training/experience in related procedures. Why did anyone make an reference to "if a nurse can do it ..." .Pharmacists get no clinical training, and very little patient contact training, certainly nothing relating to actually touching a patient. Do pharmacists by standard have bls training?

Really don't see this being practical, get into a queue in boots with your condoms, toothbrush, lancome and get a shot at the til?

bleg

Sid_Justice wrote: »

If pharmacists can do it why can't teachers?

A nurse is trained in a hospital and has a greater deal of training/experience in related procedures. Why did anyone make an reference to "if a nurse can do it ..." .Pharmacists get no clinical training, and very little patient contact training, certainly nothing relating to actually touching a patient. Do pharmacists by standard have bls training?

Really don't see this being practical, get into a queue in boots with your condoms, toothbrush, lancome and get a shot at the til?

It's actually hilarious that you use boots as an example seeing as they've been offering it to private patients for quite some time now.

nesf

Sid_Justice wrote: »

If pharmacists can do it why can't teachers?

A nurse is trained in a hospital and has a greater deal of training/experience in related procedures. Why did anyone make an reference to "if a nurse can do it ..." .Pharmacists get no clinical training, and very little patient contact training, certainly nothing relating to actually touching a patient. Do pharmacists by standard have bls training?

Really don't see this being practical, get into a queue in boots with your condoms, toothbrush, lancome and get a shot at the til?

You can flip that around and point out that nurses don't have anything close to the pharmacological knowledge that pharmacists have.

2Scoops

Sid Justice wrote:

If pharmacists can do it why can't teachers?

Why indeed! It's not hard to give an injection with a little instruction. Many patients inject their own medicine at home... and they don't even have to have a level 8 degree! :eek::pac:

kelle

2Scoops wrote: »

Why indeed! It's not hard to give an injection with a little instruction. Many patients inject their own medicine at home... and they don't even have to have a level 8 degree! :eek::pac:

Yes, but it's not something you do straightaway. You have to be shown how to do it by a qualified person (a nurse in our case), and then you have to try and give yourself nerves of steel to carry out the procedure. I know only too well, because I had to give daily injections to my terminally ill mother.

Riveta

Sid_Justice wrote: »

If pharmacists can do it why can't teachers?

A nurse is trained in a hospital...

No we're not, we do an honours BSc degree in a university....

Sid_Justice

nesf wrote: »

You can flip that around and point out that nurses don't have anything close to the pharmacological knowledge that pharmacists have.

exactly that's why nurses generally don't dispense drugs, prescribe or give pharmacological advice to doctors.

Sid_Justice

Riveta wrote: »

No we're not, we do an honours BSc degree in a university....

You'd think you'd know your own training? Nursing is taught in colleges and receive placement in hospitals for training during the degree. Are you not aware of this?

Sid_Justice

2Scoops wrote: »

Why indeed! It's not hard to give an injection with a little instruction. Many patients inject their own medicine at home... and they don't even have to have a level 8 degree! :eek::pac:

maybe they have to inject into there arse, be a bit difficult on your own, I'd agree though in principle.

Riveta

I'm wholly aware of the format thanks!

Sid_Justice

Riveta wrote: »

I'm wholly aware of the format thanks!

then why did you try and refute my statement?

opinion guy

Sid_Justice wrote: »

exactly that's why nurses generally don't dispense drugs, prescribe or give pharmacological advice to doctors.

Nurses dispense drugs all the time in hospitals and GP practice. Some of them can prescribe and the quite regularly give prescribing advice to doctors.

Wrong on all three counts.

Riveta

I find on these forums that many people (no offense to anyone intended) who, have never set foot in a hospital seem to be so knowledgeable about what healthcare professionals are qualified to do.

SomeDose

opinion guy wrote: »

Nurses dispense drugs all the time in hospitals and GP practice. Some of them can prescribe and the quite regularly give prescribing advice to doctors.

Wrong on all three counts.

I'm intrigued, exactly when and how do nurses dispense drugs? Because the last time I checked, there is legislation which prevents them from doing that.

Unless of course you're actually referring to administration of drugs...

opinion guy

SomeDose wrote: »

I'm intrigued, exactly when and how do nurses dispense drugs? Because the last time I checked, there is legislation which prevents them from doing that.

Unless of course you're actually referring to administration of drugs...

Nurse goes to drugs cabinet on ward, takes box of pills, dispenses the correct amount to fill the prescription, checks it, gives to patient. That's both dispensing and administering right there, or you reckon not ?

SomeDose

That's administration of medicines to a hospital inpatient - completely separate process to dispensing, which is fairly tightly defined in terms of what it involves and who may do it etc. Also, those medicines cannot be given to the patient to take home. If they do, the nurse has committed an offence.

Incidentally, hospital patients' drug charts are not legally classified as prescriptions (they're directions to administer) therefore the nurse is not "filling" anything.

opinion guy

SomeDose wrote: »

That's administration of medicines to a hospital inpatient - completely separate process to dispensing, which is fairly tightly defined in terms of what it involves and who may do it etc. Also, those medicines cannot be given to the patient to take home. If they do, the nurse has committed an offence.

Incidentally, hospital patients' drug charts are not legally classified as prescriptions (they're directions to administer) therefore the nurse is not "filling" anything.

You know - sure you win. Your pedantic prize is in the post.

nesf

SomeDose wrote: »

Also, those medicines cannot be given to the patient to take home.

I've gotten drugs given to me by nurses to take home for weekend leave from hospital and similar. The pharmacists release boxes of drugs to the nurses, the nurses deal with ensuring the correct dose is doled out and similar.

SomeDose

opinion guy wrote: »

You know - sure you win. Your pedantic prize is in the post.

Considering you used the example of nurse dispensing to call out another poster as being "wrong on all three counts", I think it's reasonable to point out a factual error in your argument. Call it pedantic if you like. You've an interesting approach to debate, that's for sure.

nesf wrote:

I've gotten drugs given to me by nurses to take home for weekend leave from hospital and similar. The pharmacists release boxes of drugs to the nurses, the nurses deal with ensuring the correct dose is doled out and similar.

Did the medicines have your name and instructions on it? If you were given an unlabelled container or quantity of prescription medicine to leave the hospital with, then at least one offence was committed. I'm not denying this happens, I'm merely pointing out the legalities of it.

Anyway, this is beginning to drag off-topic.

opinion guy

SomeDose wrote: »

Considering you used the example of nurse dispensing to call out another poster as being "wrong on all three counts", I think it's reasonable to point out a factual error in your argument. Call it pedantic if you like. You've an interesting approach to debate, that's for sure.

Are you familiar with the concept of context ??
We are not having a detailed debate on the ins and outs of the medico-legal definition of terms such as prescribing and administering. We are talking about pharmacists giving flu shots. If you MUST be so anal, we will step it back a notch and I will point out that sid-justice, whilst being a wise-ass, much like yourself, used the term 'dispense' when in fact he meant 'administer'. I responded in kind, realizing that although he said dispense he meant administer and simultaneously applying the context of the discussion not being a detailed medico-legal discussion as I said before, I used the same term. So in fact what you call 'a factual error in your argument' was in fact, a factual error in Sid-Justice's argument - giving him a total of four errors.

So as I said - yes you were being pedantic.

sam34

ffs lads. let's get back on topic and leave out the pettiness.

angeldelight

To start with, just want to declare I have a vested interest in the topic as I'm a pharmacist.

I think it's a great idea, for pharmacists and patients alike. For us it's great to be given extended roles and to have the government recognise our position as healthcare providers rather than shopkeepers. For the public there are also benefits - pharmacies have longer opening hours than doctors surgeries so it should be more convenient for people and they hopefully won't have to wait as long to be seen as if they went to their GP.

It's working successfully in other countries so I don't see why it won't be a success here. I myself won't be taking part, (due to an extreme squeamishness and fear of needles!), but I will be getting my flu shot from a pharmacist, as I'm fully confident that they can do the job

smtdos

If it does come in, pharmacist will have to come across extremely professional.

I wonder about the standard of consultation areas. Patients will and probably should expect close to a private room when getting a jab.

feels2gd2btrue

smtdos wrote: »

If it does come in, pharmacist will have to come across extremely professional.

I wonder about the standard of consultation areas. Patients will and probably should expect close to a private room when getting a jab.

Pharmacies are required by law to have a consultation room so that won't be a problem regarding privacy for patients.

smtdos

feels2gd2btrue wrote: »

Pharmacies are required by law to have a consultation room so that won't be a problem regarding privacy for patients.

That's my point. It was a requirement to have one fitted to all pharmacies but some I've seen are far from suitable!

To be fair it's v difficult to add such an area to an existing pharmacy where space is at a premium as it is.

I have no problem with it at all, pharmacists will be well capable of doing this. As angeldelight said, it's more convenient for certain groups of people, such as those with busy schedules/working hours that could find it difficult to fit in an appointment during their GP's working hours, not to mention the cost aspect too. There are people who probably won't change - some of the over 70s or others with medical cards who regularly attend their GP and are used to getting bloods/injections/consultations on a regular basis will probably continue to get it there rather than at the pharmacy.

It will be interesting to see how the figures stack up when this season's campaign ends - for those availing of it through their GP -vs- pharmacy, and the demographics of same.

foreverandever

I think the reason GPs are protesting is not because they don't trust pharmacists but they're worried about monitoring the high risk patients who are to receive the vaccine and keeping a record of who else received it and then entering it on their medical record. I don't think the pharmacists have come up with any solution for this yet that wouldn't involve more work than just the patient receiving it in their GP surgery?

bleg

foreverandever wrote: »

I think the reason GPs are protesting is not because they don't trust pharmacists but they're worried about monitoring the high risk patients who are to receive the vaccine and keeping a record of who else received it and then entering it on their medical record. I don't think the pharmacists have come up with any solution for this yet that wouldn't involve more work than just the patient receiving it in their GP surgery?

No. These are the reasons that GP give to veil the real reason: they don't want to lose revenue!

Dr Galen

That likely works both ways in fairness Bleg

foreverandever

Why lose revenue and add extra work?

smtdos

Revenue is going to be lost one way or another either to pharmacists or fempi

bleg

Dr Galen wrote: »

That likely works both ways in fairness Bleg

Agreed but lets stop hiding behind different issues.

foreverandever

Where's the incentive for doctors to stop administering the vaccine? Yes money is an issue, general practice is a business, but also the extra work that would come with the pharmacists administering it. Why would they change a system that is working?

jimdeans

bleg wrote: »

No. These are the reasons that GP give to veil the real reason: they don't want to lose revenue!

Massive generalisation to say that the only reason GPs might question this is because of revenue.

It would be as easy to take the line from a pharmacist above who said "it's great because the govt are looking at us as professionals rather than shopkeepers" and say that he or she is lying.

I know a good few GPs who really care about their patients. No-one has said anything about it to me. But pharmacists don't have training in practical procedures, so they're right to ask the questions. I don't object to it, but I'm glad the GPs are asking the questions.

I've had anaphylaxis (to codeine...apparently dead rare!). I was in a hospital lab at the time, so went upstairs to A+E and I got a drip straight away with a steroid and adrenaline into my arm. Can the pharmacist do that, like the GP could? I don't know the answer (and I know a pharmacist can call an ambulance). But I'm sure someone said above that pharmacists will be trained to deal with allergic reactions. Can they put in drips? Again, i don't know the answer, but I'm glad someone is asking!

christmas2010

On the subject of cost I was in the UK last week and Boots were advertising the flu vaccine for £7.50.
Last winter my GP was charging €40, so a bit of healthy competition might not be a bad idea.

bleg

jimdeans wrote: »

Massive generalisation to say that the only reason GPs might question this is because of revenue.

It would be as easy to take the line from a pharmacist above who said "it's great because the govt are looking at us as professionals rather than shopkeepers" and say that he or she is lying.

I know a good few GPs who really care about their patients. No-one has said anything about it to me. But pharmacists don't have training in practical procedures, so they're right to ask the questions. I don't object to it, but I'm glad the GPs are asking the questions.

I've had anaphylaxis (to codeine...apparently dead rare!). I was in a hospital lab at the time, so went upstairs to A+E and I got a drip straight away with a steroid and adrenaline into my arm. Can the pharmacist do that, like the GP could? I don't know the answer (and I know a pharmacist can call an ambulance). But I'm sure someone said above that pharmacists will be trained to deal with allergic reactions. Can they put in drips? Again, i don't know the answer, but I'm glad someone is asking!

It works fine in boots in Ireland and in pharmacies in general in other countries.

Sid_Justice

You can flip that around and point out that nurses don't have anything close to the pharmacological knowledge that pharmacists have.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

exactly that's why nurses generally don't dispense drugs, prescribe or give pharmacological advice to doctors.

Opinion_guy don't make any asumptions on what I meant to say or didn't say. If i meant administer I'd have said administer. If people had any sense here and wanted 'context' on my post, they would have seen it wasn't a slur on nurses but an example of why pharmacists have job that makes them a pharmacist and nurses have a job that makes them a nurse. Pharmacists should avoid doing nurses' jobs because they're not qualified/trained to do them and nurses should avoid doing pharmacists' job. Pharmacists aren't qualified or trained to administer drugs, nurses are. the hse wants to spend thousands training pharmacists to do the job nurses already are able to do.

Let boots employ a nurse to administer vaccines in pharmacies if the public would like to avail of such facilities. Howver I know I'd wouldn't want to be in some converted cupboard in boots if I had a unusual reaction to a flu jab.

foreverandever

christmas2010 wrote: »

On the subject of cost I was in the UK last week and Boots were advertising the flu vaccine for £7.50.
Last winter my GP was charging €40, so a bit of healthy competition might not be a bad idea.

The UK and Irish Health systems are completely different!

Milltrix

Indeed you could probably train a monkey to give a shot but there's a bit more than that; making clinical decisons about who should have any particular vaccine, the contraindications / risks associated for people with certain medical conditions etc.

bleg

Milltrix wrote: »

Indeed you could probably train a monkey to give a shot but there's a bit more than that; making clinical decisons about who should have any particular vaccine, the contraindications / risks associated for people with certain medical conditions etc.

Seriously, why can't people on here get the point? Pharmacists are already administering vaccines in Ireland with no major problems as far as I'm aware.

It happens in other jurisdictions also without any major problems as far as I'm aware.

Why the sudden outrage over patient safety now?

Irish pharmacists are already administering the vaccine.


The fee has been set at 15 euro.