Which smokers enroll in a hospital based smoking cessation trial? Survey of smoking related behaviors, quit attempts, and motivation to quit.

BACKGROUND: Understanding smoking behaviors in hospital patients who smoke may improve inpatient cessation treatments. This study aimed to describe smoking-related behaviors, past-quit attempts, and self-reported difficulties experienced in quitting among those who enrolled in a smoking cessation trial of varenicline. METHODS: Baseline data were obtained from adult hospitalized smokers (average ≥ 10 cigarettes/day in 4-weeks prior to hospitalization) who enrolled in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of varenicline ± nicotine lozenges at five Australian public hospitals. A logistic regression model tested the association between participant characteristics and quitting in the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Participants' (n = 320; 57% male, 52.5 ± 12.1 years old) motivation and confidence in quitting were high. A total of 120 participants (37.5%) had attempted quitting in the previous 12-months. Prior hospitalization (P = .008) and employment status (P = .015) were significantly associated with past quit attempts. No statistically significant differences were noted in the reason for hospitalization or the level of nicotine dependence between participants who attempted quitting in the previous 12 months and their counterparts. Smoking cessation pharmacotherapy was used by 55% of those attempting to quit; nicotine replacement therapy (65.2%) and varenicline (16.7%) most common. Stress or anxiety, urges to smoke and a lack of motivation were the difficulties experienced in past quit attempts. CONCLUSIONS: Those who had a prior hospitalization and were unemployed had significantly greater odds of reporting past quit attempts. Further research is needed to investigate the degree of adherence among inpatient smokers with the smoke-free hospital policies and the frequency of NRT provision and uptake on admission.

Depression and anxiety prevalence in people with cystic fibrosis and their caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of depression and anxiety in people with cystic fibrosis (PwCF) and their caregivers is high, however, results have been inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the prevalence of depression and anxiety in PwCF and their caregivers and explore sources of heterogeneity. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL plus and PsychINFO databases were searched from inception to January 2021. Studies were included if a specific psychometric tool (PT) to assess depression or anxiety (rather than quality of life) was used and did not involve a transitory patient state. Random-effects models were applied due to high anticipated heterogeneity and I2 estimates were calculated. Sources of heterogeneity were explored through subgroup comparisons. The presence of small-study effects was investigated visually using funnel plots and statistically using the Egger test. RESULTS: A total of 94 articles (48 full-text publications, 46 abstracts) were included. Depression prevalence in adolescents aged 12-18 years (n = 2386), adults (n = 9206) and caregivers (n = 6617) were 18.7% (95% CI 12.8-25.3%, I2 = 89.2%), 27.2% (95% CI 23.6-31%, I2 = 90.4%), and 32.8% (95% CI 27.9-37.9%, I2 = 90.3%), respectively. Anxiety prevalence in adolescents aged 12-18 years (n = 2142) was 26% (95% CI 19.6-33%, I2 = 86.4%), 28.4% (95% CI 25-31.9%, I2 = 85%) for adults (n = 8175), and 38.4% (95% CI 30.8-46.2%, I2 = 94.6%) for caregivers (n = 5931). Prevalence differed by the PT used and study location. DISCUSSION: This comprehensive analysis found the prevalence of depression and anxiety in PwCF and their caregivers to be high, supporting recommendations for regular screening. Choice of PT significantly influenced prevalence, indicating a need for future studies to identify the optimal PT for each CF population to identify those most at risk.

Developing a Global Community of Practice for Pharmacy Workforce Resilience-Meet GRiT.

Workforce resilience in pharmacy is required to ensure the practice, education, and administrative systems remain viable and sustainable over time and when facing challenges. Whether it is addressing burnout of pharmacists or students, or the structure and policies/procedures of employment and professional organizations, working to increase resilience across all individuals and sectors is essential to relieve pressure and promote better well-being, especially during the recent pandemic. The purpose of this article is to describe the development of a community of practice global group focused on development of resilience within the pharmacy workforce that is inclusive of students, pharmacy interns/preregistration and registered pharmacists. The steering group meets monthly and has representation of 24 members across eight countries. Members meet to discuss pertinent issues they are facing in practice, as well as to share and progress ideas on education, research, and practice initiatives. To date, members have collectively implemented resilience training in pharmacy education, researched burnout and resilience in both students and pharmacists, and facilitated international collaborations both within and outside core group members. Future activities will focus on strengthening the community of practice in order to harness the power of the collective.

Reducing Medical Admissions and Presentations Into Hospital through Optimising Medicines (REMAIN HOME): a stepped wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether integrating pharmacists into general practices reduces the number of unplanned re-admissions of patients recently discharged from hospital. DESIGN, SETTING: Stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial in 14 general practices in southeast Queensland. PARTICIPANTS: Adults discharged from one of seven study hospitals during the seven days preceding recruitment (22 May 2017 - 14 March 2018) and prescribed five or more long term medicines, or having a primary discharge diagnosis of congestive heart failure or exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. INTERVENTION: Comprehensive face-to-face medicine management consultation with an integrated practice pharmacist within seven days of discharge, followed by a consultation with their general practitioner and further pharmacist consultations as needed. MAJOR OUTCOMES: Rates of unplanned, all-cause hospital re-admissions and emergency department (ED) presentations 12 months after hospital discharge; incremental net difference in overall costs. RESULTS: By 12 months, there had been 282 re-admissions among 177 control patients (incidence rate [IR], 1.65 per person-year) and 136 among 129 intervention patients (IR, 1.09 per person-year; fully adjusted IR ratio [IRR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.52-1.18). ED presentation incidence (fully adjusted IRR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.94) and combined re-admission and ED presentation incidence (fully adjusted IRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) were significantly lower for intervention patients. The estimated incremental net cost benefit of the intervention was $5072 per patient, with a benefit-cost ratio of 31:1. CONCLUSION: A collaborative pharmacist-GP model of post-hospital discharge medicines management can reduce the incidence of hospital re-admissions and ED presentations, achieving substantial cost savings to the health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001627448 (prospective).

The efficacy and safety of varenicline alone versus in combination with nicotine lozenges for smoking cessation among hospitalised smokers (VANISH): study protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is a leading cause of premature deaths globally. The health benefits of smoking cessation are many. However, majority of quit attempts are unsuccessful. One way to potentially improve success rates is to evaluate new combinations of existing smoking cessation therapies that may work synergistically to decrease the intensity of withdrawal symptoms and cravings. AIMS: To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and safety of the combination of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) lozenges versus varenicline alone in assisting hospitalised smokers to quit. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Adults with a history of smoking ≥10 cigarettes per day on average in the 4 weeks prior to their hospitalisation will be recruited. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the intervention group and will receive varenicline and NRT lozenges, or the control group and will receive varenicline and placebo lozenges. All participants will be actively referred to behavioural support from telephone Quitline. Participants are followed up at 1 and 3 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months from the start of treatment. The primary outcome is carbon monoxide validated prolonged abstinence from 2 weeks to 6 months after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes include self-reported and biochemically validated prolonged and point prevalence abstinence at 3, 6 and 12 months, self-reported adverse events, withdrawal symptoms and cravings, adherence to treatment, Quitline sessions attended and others. According to the Russell Standard, all randomised participants will be accounted for in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the principles of Good Clinical Practice, the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (updated 2015) and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018). Approval will be sought from the Human Ethics Committees of all the participating hospitals and the university. Written informed consent will be obtained from each participant at the time of recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001792213).

Validation of a risk stratification tool for a Hospital Outreach Medication Review (HOMR) program.

BACKGROUND: Early hospital readmissions are a challenging and costly experience for both patients and the healthcare service. Reducing hospital readmission rates is a priority for health services globally and this is evident with the establishment of multiple outpatient services to promote early follow-up and to initiate secondary preventative care measures. One such intervention has been the introduction of a pharmacist-led, Hospital Outreach Medication Review (HOMR) service. However, the demand for the service has meant reaching this target has become an increasingly ambitious goal within allocated resources. OBJECTIVE: To validate a risk-stratification tool to identify low-risk patients in whom a telephone medication review would be a safe and effective alternative to a home-based review. METHOD: A risk tool was derived and applied to a retrospective sample to act as the parent cohort. A prospective cohort was stratified into low and high-risk based on this tool, and received either a telephone or a traditional home medication review respectively. RESULTS: 235 patients were included in final analysis (n = 113 prospective, n = 122 baseline controls). High-risk patients were more likely to be readmitted at 60 and 90 days in the baseline cohort (9/38 vs 7/84, p = 0.04 and 11/38 vs 9/84, p = 0.02 respectively), with a trend towards increased readmissions at 30 days (5/38 vs 3/84, p = 0.11). Logistic regression identified the risk tool as an independent predictor of hospital readmission (IRR 1.18, p = 0.04), whereas age and Charlson comorbidity were not (p = 0.80 and 0.31 respectively). There was no significant difference between the new model (incorporating phone reviews) and the parent cohort (p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Our risk score was able to identify those at highest risk of hospital readmission at 60 and 90 days. Utilising this risk score, a telephone HOMR for low-risk patients was a safe and efficient alternative to a traditional home review.

Reducing Medical Admissions into Hospital through Optimising Medicines (REMAIN HOME) Study: protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: A model of general practitioner (GP) and pharmacist collaboration in primary care may be an effective strategy to reduce medication-related problems and provide better support to patients after discharge. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a model of structured pharmacist and GP care reduces hospital readmissions in high-risk patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol details a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial that will recruit participants over 9 months with a 12-month follow-up. There will be 14 clusters each representing a different general practice medical centre. A total of 2240 participants will be recruited from hospital who attend an enrolled medical centre, take five or more long-term medicines or whose reason for admission was related to heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The intervention is a multifaceted service, involving a pharmacist integrated into a medical centre to assist patients after hospitalisation. Participants will meet with the practice pharmacist and their GP after discharge to review and reconcile their medicines and discuss changes made in hospital. The pharmacist will follow-up with the participant and liaise with other health professionals involved in the participant's care. The control will be usual care, which usually involves a patient self-organising a visit to their GP after hospital discharge.The primary outcome is the rate of unplanned, all-cause hospital readmissions over 12 months, which will be analysed using a mixed effects Poisson regression model with a random effect for cluster and a fixed effect to account for any temporal trend. A cost analysis will be undertaken to compare the healthcare costs associated with the intervention to those of usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval (HREC/16/QRBW/410). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and reports to key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12616001627448.

A review of the evidence for occupational exposure risks to novel anticancer agents - A focus on monoclonal antibodies.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence of occupational exposure risks to novel anticancer agents is limited and yet to be formally evaluated from the Australian healthcare perspective. METHODS: From March to September 2013 medical databases, organizational policies, drug monographs, and the World Wide Web were searched for evidence relating to occupational exposure to monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins, gene therapies, and other unclassified novel anticancer agents. RESULTS: Australian legislation, national and international guidelines, and drug company information excluded novel agents or provided inconsistent risk assessments and safe handling recommendations. Monoclonal antibody guidelines reported conflicting information and were often divergent with available evidence and pharmacologic rationale demonstrating minimal internalisation ability and occupational exposure risk. Despite similar physiochemical, pharmacologic, and internalisation properties to monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins were included in only a minority of guidelines. Clinical directives for the safe handling of gene therapies and live vaccines were limited, where available focusing on prevention against exposure and cross-contamination. Although mechanistically different, novel small molecule agents (proteasome inhibitors), possess similar physiochemical and internalisation properties to traditional cytotoxic agents warranting cytotoxic classification and handling. CONCLUSION: Novel agents are rapidly emerging into clinical practice, and healthcare personnel have few resources to evaluate risk and provide safety recommendations. Novel agents possess differing physical, molecular and pharmacological profiles compared to traditional cytotoxic anticancer agents. Evaluation of occupational exposure risk should consider both toxicity and internalisation. Evidence-based guidance able to direct safe handling practices for novel anticancer agents across a variety of clinical settings is urgently required.

Impact of a specialist clinical cancer pharmacist at a multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic.

AIM: Medication misadventure contributes to unplanned hospital admissions. General practitioners (GPs) may lack experience in managing problems involving complex cancer-related medication. A previous survey explored the unmet needs of lung cancer outpatients and highlighted their desire for more medication information. Inpatient clinical pharmacy services positively impact on patient care. This study evaluated the effects of extending this service to outpatients. METHOD: A specialist cancer pharmacist joined the lung cancer clinic team for 6 months. Patients completed assessments of their medication adherence and their satisfaction with the provision of medicine information (at baseline and repeated within 30 days of initial pharmacist review). Following review, a medication list and plan (detailing recommendations/interventions) were provided to patients and their health care providers. Interventions were categorized and graded according to risk avoided. Unplanned admissions and clinic attendance rates were compared with the previous year. GPs' opinion of the service was also evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients participated in the study. Medication adherence (P = 0.007) and patient satisfaction (P < 0.001) significantly improved. A total of 154 pharmacist interventions were made: 4.5% extreme risk and 43.5% high risk. The mean number of unplanned admissions and clinic attendances per patient decreased from 0.3 to 0.26 (P = 0.265) and from 3.32 to 2.98 (P = 0.004), respectively. Seventy-four percent of surveyed GPs found the service useful. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a specialist cancer pharmacist to the outpatient lung cancer team led to significant improvements in patient medication adherence. Both patients and GPs were highly satisfied with the service. Medication misadventure and clinic attendances were reduced.

Challenging historical perspectives of the 24-h chemotherapy day: Flexible chemotherapy dose-timing guidelines.

AIM: Variation in dose-timing within multiday chemotherapy regimens is largely unknown with convention being to administer subsequent days of treatment at 24-h intervals. However, in reality there are many occasions where doses are given either earlier or later to accommodate a variety of clinical and operational priorities. This project aimed to evaluate the degree of existing variation in chemotherapy dose-timing and to investigate whether deliberate variation could improve quality and efficiency outcomes such as reduction of after hours chemotherapy administration or reduced inpatient length of stay. METHOD: Chemotherapy charts and hospital admission datasets (n = 112) from sarcoma and hematology inpatient regimens were retrospectively audited to ascertain existing variation in dose-timing and overall length of stay. Clinical practice guidelines enabling a safe degree of dose-timing variation for individual chemotherapy regimens were developed, implemented over a 3-month period, and evaluated against safety, efficiency and economic outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline dose-timing variation was common with administration occurring up to 8 h early and 7 h later than conventional 24-h dosing intervals. Following implementation of clinical practice guidelines, there was a 10% reduction in chemotherapy finishing after hours and a significant reduction in length of stay for two sarcoma regimens, projected to save 24 inpatient bed days (over $20,000) across more than forty inpatient episodes annually. CONCLUSION: Deviation from the standard 24-h chemotherapy day (deliberately or inadvertently) was a common yet unstandardized practice. Clinical practice guidelines enabling flexible dose-timing of chemotherapy provided an opportunity to improve chemotherapy administration safety measures, tailor chemotherapy delivery to ward and patient needs, and in some instances reduce non-value-added length of stay.

An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia.

The need to develop An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia (the "APPF") was identified during the 2010 review of the competency standards for Australian pharmacists. The Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework Steering Committee, a collaborative profession-wide committee comprised of representatives of ten pharmacy organisations, examined and adapted existing advanced practice frameworks, all of which were found to have been based on the Competency Development and Evaluation Group (CoDEG) Advanced and Consultant Level Framework (the "CoDEG Framework") from the United Kingdom. Its competency standards were also found to align well with the Domains of the National Competency Standards Framework for Pharmacists in Australia (the "National Framework"). Adaptation of the CoDEG Framework created an APPF that is complementary to the National Framework, sufficiently flexible to customise for recognising advanced practice in any area of professional practice and has been approved by the boards/councils of all participating organisations. The primary purpose of the APPF is to assist the development of the profession to meet the changing health care needs of the community. However, it is also a valuable tool for assuring members of the public of the competence of an advanced practice pharmacist and the quality and safety of the services they deliver.

Developing a performance data suite to facilitate lean improvement in a chemotherapy day unit.

PURPOSE: A multidisciplinary team from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia, developed a performance data suite to support a service improvement project based on lean manufacturing principles in its 19-chair chemotherapy day unit (CDU) and cytosuite chemotherapy production facility. The aims of the project were to reduce patient wait time and improve equity of access to the CDU. METHODS: A project team consisting of a pharmacist and CDU nurse supported the management team for 10 months in engaging staff and customers to identify waste in processes, analyze root causes, eliminate non-value-adding steps, reduce variation, and level workloads to improve quality and flow. Process mapping, staff and patient tracking and opinion surveys, medical record audits, and interrogation of electronic treatment records were undertaken. RESULTS: This project delivered a 38% reduction in median wait time on the day (from 32 to 20 minutes; P < .01), 7-day reduction in time to commencement of treatment for patients receiving combined chemoradiotherapy regimens (from 25 to 18 days; P < .01), and 22% reduction in wastage associated with expired drug and pharmacy rework (from 29% to 7%; P < .01). Improvements in efficiency enabled the cytosuite to increase the percentage of product manufactured within 10 minutes of appointment times by 29% (from 47% to 76%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: A lean improvement methodology provided a robust framework for improved understanding and management of complex system constraints within a CDU, resulting in improved access to treatment and reduced waiting times on the day.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of fluconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing first consolidation chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Fluconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole are used prophylactically in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). This study evaluated the clinical and economic outcomes of these agents when used in AML patients undergoing consolidation chemotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review (2003-10) of AML patients receiving consolidation chemotherapy was performed. Patients were followed through their first cycle of consolidation chemotherapy. Antifungal prescribing patterns, clinical outcomes and resource consumptions were recorded. A decision analytical model was developed to depict the downstream consequences of using each antifungal agent, with success defined as completion of the designated course of initial antifungal prophylaxis without developing invasive fungal disease (IFD). Cost-effectiveness and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 106 consecutive patients were analysed. Baseline characteristics and predisposing factors for IFD were comparable between groups. Three IFDs (one proven, one probable and one suspected) occurred, all in the posaconazole group. Patients receiving posaconazole had the highest rate of intolerance requiring drug cessation (13% versus 7% in each of the fluconazole and voriconazole groups). Fluconazole conferred overall savings per patient of 26% over posaconazole and 13% over voriconazole. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated a mean cost saving with fluconazole of AU$8430 per patient (95% CI AU$5803-AU$11 054) versus posaconazole and AU$3681 per patient (95% CI AU$990-AU$6319) versus voriconazole. One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to show that, in the setting of consolidation therapy for AML, fluconazole is the most cost-effective approach to antifungal prophylaxis compared with posaconazole or voriconazole.

Thromboprophylaxis prescribing and thrombotic event rates in multiple myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide or thalidomide at a specialist cancer hospital.

AIM: To assess thromboprophylaxis prescribing patterns against current guidelines and report thromboembolism (TE) incidence in multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated with thalidomide (thal) or lenalidomide (len) at a specialist cancer hospital over a one-year period. METHOD: Dispensing records of thal and len, diagnosis of MM, patients' characteristics, disease status, co-prescribed medicines including thromboprophylaxis and incidence of TE were extracted from patients' records and a patient survey conducted to identify patients who sourced thromboprophylactic medicines outside the hospital. RESULTS: Enoxaparin was most the commonly prescribed thromboprophylactic agent (43%), followed by low-dose aspirin (26%) and therapeutic warfarin (6%). The thromboprophylactic strategy (including no prophylaxis) could not be determined for 22% of patients. TE incidence (with any thromboprophylaxis) was 9.3 and 9.1% in thal-based and len-based regimens, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both aspirin and enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis were prescribed for patients on both low-risk and high-risk immunomodulatory drug-based regimens, deviating from current consensus guidelines. Treatment of comorbidities constituted the rationale for maintenance on therapeutic warfarin. Fixed low-dose warfarin was not prescribed. TE event rates (with any thromboprophylaxis) were consistent with those reported in the literature. Documentation of a chosen strategy was lacking for nearly a quarter of patients, resulting in uncertainty of treatment plan for other members of the multidisciplinary treating team. Centers need to work towards evidence-based institutional guidelines and improving documentation practices for thromboprophylaxis in their MM patients.

A controlled before and after study to evaluate a patient and health professional partnership model towards effective medication reconciliation.

UNLABELLED: Preventable medication errors impact substantially on the Australian healthcare system. Where 'poor communication of medical information at transition points is responsible for as many as 50% of all medication errors', a leading contributor for this type of medication error is lack of consumer knowledge about medicines information. This study was aimed at designing and testing the effectiveness of a consumer-healthcare professional partnership model towards effective medication reconciliation. This model aims to empower consumers about their medicines information, so that they would contribute more effectively to medication reconciliation and thereby minimise medication errors occurring at transition points. Components of this model were informed by qualitative data gleaned from patient opinion surveys, focus group sessions involving nurses, doctors and pharmacists working at the hospital and results of a literature search of medication safety tools. Programme development was informed by health improvement approaches centred on a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. Evaluation for effectiveness was conducted within a framework of a controlled before and after study. RESULTS: revealed that there was a 1.4-fold increase in the reporting rate of pharmacists intervention. The study could not demonstrate that the designed intervention was effective in minimising near-misses. However, there is statistically insignificant reduction in errors for patients that were correctly exposed to the intervention. Anecdotal evidence suggests there is utility for a patient population keen to claim greater ownership of their medicines information. Further, we advocate that patient education about medicines and the establishment of a consumer-healthcare professional model occur prior to ward admission.

Thalidomide thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma: a review of current evidence.

Currently multiple antithrombotic agents are used for thalidomide thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma patients. Agents used include low-dose aspirin, fixed low-dose and therapeutic warfarin and prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. To evaluate the evidence for the efficacy and safety of aspirin, warfarin and low molecular weight heparin thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma patients on thalidomide a literature search was conducted in May and June 2011. Databases searched included the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews and Ovid MEDLINE. The search was restricted to English language articles and limited to articles published from 2005 to 2011. Most studies consisted of small prospective cohort studies not originally designed to assess thromboprophylaxis as an outcome. A single comparative randomized trial, several retrospective review articles, two meta-analyses and two clinical practice guidelines were also identified. Current evidence fails to demonstrate a clear advantage of any particular thromboprophylaxis strategy. Results from the only prospective comparative randomized trial found no significant differences among aspirin, warfarin and low molecular weight heparin. More studies are required that consider not only efficacy and safety, but also costs, lifestyle burden and patient preference.

A survey of reimbursement practices of private health insurance companies for pharmaceuticals not covered under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current practices and policy of Australian private health insurance (PHI) companies with respect to cover for pharmaceuticals not subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A 2008 review of web-published policy statements for top-level hospital and comprehensive general treatment insurance, and survey of reimbursement practices by way of questionnaire, of 31 Australian-registered, open-membership PHI companies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES(S): Description of the level of pharmaceutical cover and important considerations identified by PHI companies for funding non-PBS pharmaceuticals through benefit entitlements or ex-gratia payments. RESULTS: Nine of thirty-one PHI companies (29%) provided responses accounting for ~60% market share of PHI. The majority of smaller PHI firms either declined participation or did not respond. The maximum limits offered for non-PBS pharmaceuticals, under comprehensive general treatment insurance, varied significantly and typically did not adequately cover high-cost pharmaceuticals. Some companies occasionally offered ex-gratia payments (or discretionary payments in excess of the policyholder's entitlement benefits) for high cost-pharmaceuticals. Factors considered important in their decision to approve or reject ex-gratia requests were provided. All results were de-identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is little consistency across PHI companies in the manner in which they handle requests for high-cost pharmaceuticals in excess of the defined benefit limits. Such information and processes are not transparent to consumers.

Reducing workplace cytotoxic surface contamination using a closed-system drug transfer device.

BACKGROUND: The potential for staff exposure to antineoplastic agents exists in the workplace despite current recommended safe handling procedures. Reliance on cytotoxic drug safety cabinets (CDSC) to provide total protection from exposure to hazardous drugs is insufficient. Preventing workplace contamination is the best strategy to minimise exposure. PhaSeal is a commercially available system for ensuring the leak-free transfer of hazardous drugs, fitting both the NIOSH and ISOPP definitions of a closed system. To date, there have been no published studies examining the use of a closed system drug transfer device (PhaSeal) under Australian conditions.The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of a closed system drug transfer device on cytotoxic surface contamination in the cytotoxic preparation areas of two Australian metropolitan public hospitals. METHOD: This was a pre- and post-intervention study in which chemical contamination was tested at baseline then at five and 12 months after the introduction of the a closed system drug transfer device. Cyclophosphamide was used as a surrogate marker for all cytotoxic drugs. Surface wipe sampling was performed at specified sites within the cytotoxic suite using a standardized technique. Commercial products of cyclophosphamide were also sampled. RESULTS: After five months, contamination was reduced in 13 of the 22 sites sampled (59%), with four of these samples showing undetectable levels of contamination. Two other site samples (9%) remained unchanged. The total contamination of surfaces tested was reduced by 24%. After five months hospital 1 withdrew from the study. After 12 months, surface contamination was reduced in 75% of sample sites. The total contamination of surfaces tested was reduced by 68%. The wipes of the external surface of commercial products detected cyclophosphamide contamination. CONCLUSION: When used inside a CDSC, the closed system drug transfer device PhaSeal further reduces surface contamination, in some instances to undetectable levels.

Impact of an electronic antibiotic advice and approval system on antibiotic prescribing in an Australian teaching hospital.

The impact of a computer-based infectious diseases electronic antibiotic advice and approval system ("IDEA(3)S") was assessed as an alternative to a labour-intensive, phone-based approval system. IDEA(3)S-based approvals replaced 48% of all approvals for the most frequently requested antimicrobial agents (ceftriaxone/cefotaxime, vancomycin) and were associated with stable overall rates of antimicrobial use. Antibiotic prescribing for community-acquired pneumonia was 76% concordant with IDEA(3)S recommendations, and clinical acceptance of IDEA(3)S was excellent. Successful implementation required a coordinated, evidence-based approach between clinicians, pharmacists and hospital administration, together with ongoing staff education and feedback of results. IDEA(3)S is a useful new adjunct to routine clinician consultation to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing for a number of common indications in hospitals.