Rural Australian community pharmacists' views on complementary and alternative medicine: a pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) are being used increasingly across the world. In Australia, community pharmacists are a major supplier of these products but knowledge of the products and interactions with other medicines is poor. Information regarding the use of CAMs by metropolitan pharmacists has been documented by the National Prescribing Service (NPS) in Australia but the views of rural/regional community pharmacists have not been explored. The aim of this pilot study was to explore the knowledge, attitudes and information seeking of a cohort of rural community pharmacists towards CAMs and to compare the findings to the larger NPS study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross sectional self-administered postal questionnaire was mailed to all community pharmacists in one rural/regional area of Australia. Using a range of scales, data was collected regarding attitudes, knowledge, information seeking behaviour and demographics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighty eligible questionnaires were returned. Most pharmacists reported knowing that they should regularly ask consumers if they are using CAMs but many lacked the confidence to do so. Pharmacists surveyed for this study were more knowledgeable in regards to side effects and interactions of CAMs than those in the NPS survey. Over three quarters of pharmacists surveyed reported sourcing CAM information at least several times a month. The most frequently sought information was drug interactions, dose, contraindications and adverse effects. A variety of resources were used to source information, the most popular source was the internet but the most useful resource was CAM text books.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Pharmacists have varied opinions on the use of CAMs and many lack awareness of or access to good quality CAMs information. Therefore, there is a need to provide pharmacists with opportunities for further education. The data is valuable in assisting interested stakeholders with the development of initiatives to address the gaps in attitudes, knowledge and to improve effectiveness of information seeking behaviour.</p

Snapshot versus continuous documentation of pharmacists’ interventions: are snapshots worthwhile?

Background: The documentation of pharmacists’ interventions is important but there are limited studies evaluating the different methods of documentation. Aim: To compare the nature of pharmacists’ interventions documented during snapshots versus direct observation in a paediatric hospital and to gather pharmacists’ opinions on the utility of the different documentation methods. Method: The pattern and rates of pharmacists’ interventions from the snapshot reports and direct observation were compared across five study wards. The snapshots represented pharmacists’ self-reported interventions over a period of 5 days. The researcher observed and documented pharmacists’ interventions for 35–37 non-consecutive days. A focus group discussion was conducted to gather pharmacists’ opinions on the documentation methods. Results: A total of 398 interventions were documented by pharmacists during three snapshots with ‘clarification of medication orders’ being the commonest type of intervention. A total of 982 pharmacists’ interventions were documented during direct observation. The overall rate of pharmacists’ interventions documented during observation was not significantly different compared to that of the snapshots (p = 0.054). However, the rate of active interventions (i.e. interventions leading to a change in drug therapy) was significantly higher (p = 0.002) during direct observation, and the pattern of interventions was significantly different. From the focus group discussion, participants felt that the snapshot reports were an inadequate representation of pharmacists’ clinical activities.Conclusion: Documentation of pharmacists’ active interventions during snapshots was not representative of those documented during observation. This suggests that snapshot data may underestimate the impact of pharmacists’ interventions in minimising medication misadventure amongst paediatric inpatients

Changes in use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Australia over the period 1992-2004

Purpose Evidence is growing that early use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and combinations of these drugs provide optimal care for people with rheumatoid arthirits. The aim of this study was to describe objectively the pattern of consumption of DMARDs in the Australian community (community-based prescribing, specialist and general practitioner) 1992-2004, and to compare this with prescribing patterns reported in other countries. Method Dispensing statistics from the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS-Australia's universal prescription subsidy scheme) were analysed and temporal trends evaluated. Drug consumption was calculated as the number of dispensed defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 inhabitants/day (WHO ATC/DDD classification 2005). Results The consumption of DMARDs in the Australian community increased steadily from 2.6 DDD/1000 inhabitants/ day in 1992 to 5.5 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day. Over the period 1992-2004, methotrexate (MTX) was the most commonly used DMARD (from 0.6 to 3.0 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day). Consumption of gold (parentcral and oral) and penicillamine declined during this time. The inclusion of leflunomide on the PBS in 2000 contributed to the increase in DMARD usage. Conclusion Use of DMARDs within the Australian community has increased in recent years, coinciding with the change in guidelines for therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to earlier use of DMARDs and the more common use of combinations. This study used DDD methodology to quantify trends for DMARD consumption and these trends are broadly consistent with international prescribing patterns assessed using different methodologies. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd