Objectives Despite the safety and efficacy of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, many persons are still not receiving it. The purpose of this pilot project was to evaluate the number of first doses of the 9-valent HPV (9vHPV) vaccination administered after a pharmacist-led intervention in the Adult Family Planning Clinic at Grady Health System (GHS), a large academic urban medical center in Atlanta, Georgia. Methods The pilot project had 3 phases: pre-intervention (November 15, 2016, through March 31, 2017), active intervention (November 15, 2017, through December 29, 2017), and post-intervention (December 30, 2017, through March 31, 2018). The pre-intervention phase was used as a historical control. The active intervention phase consisted of pharmacist interventions in the clinic and patient and health care provider education. The post-intervention phase evaluated the durability of pharmacist-led interventions performed and education provided during the active phase. Results Eighty-nine first-dose 9vHPV vaccines (of the 3-dose series) were administered to young adults aged 18-26 during the project period (November 15, 2017, through March 31, 2018); none were administered during the pre-intervention phase. Of 89 patients who received a first 9vHPV vaccine dose, 20 patients also received a second 9vHPV vaccine dose. During the project period, 166 doses of 9vHPV vaccine (first, second, or third doses) were administered. Conclusion This pharmacist-led intervention led to an increase in the number of young adult patients receiving their first dose of the 9vHPV vaccination series. With the support of other health care providers, pharmacist-led initiatives can expand vaccine-related health literacy and facilitate access to immunization services.
Purpose Intravenous anticancer therapy can be associated with hypersensitivity- and/or infusion-related reactions (IRRs) which may result in life-threatening symptoms. As part of a quality improvement project, oncology pharmacists developed and implemented a nurse-driven, symptom-based IRR protocol. The objective of the evaluation was to evaluate IRR treatment failure after implementation of a symptom-based protocol in an ambulatory infusion center. Secondary objectives included determining the most common anticancer agents requiring IRR treatment, documentation of ED visits or hospital admissions within 72 h of treatment, documentation of mortality due to an IRR, and evaluating whether there were multiple documented IRRs to the same medication. Methods A total of 456 patients, who received an infusion of anticancer therapy at Grady Health System (GHS) between February 2014 and March 2018, were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were included if they received a protocol-specific medication for infusion reaction management of a parenterally administered anticancer agent. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment failure within 72 h of treatment for an IRR. Results Seventy-eight patients experiencing 108 IRRs were included in the analysis. Five percent of IRRs consisted of rigors only, 57% of IRRs were mild/moderate severity, 31% of IRRs were severe/anaphylactic severity and 7% of IRRs were rigors in addition to a mild/moderate/severe reaction. Of the 108 IRRs, treatment failure within 72 h was observed in eight reactions; six were evaluated in the emergency department and two required a hospital admission. Overall, 93% of reactions resolved in the infusion center and patients were discharged home; there were no patient deaths. The most common offending agents were paclitaxel and oxaliplatin. Conclusion Following implementation of a novel pharmacist-developed, symptom-based nurse-driven protocol, infusion reaction treatment failure occurred in 7% of IRRs evaluated. Although the failure rate was low, additional nurse education and improved access to protocol-directed medications may optimize use of the protocol.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.