What is known and objective Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescribing may often be inappropriate and expose patients to a risk of adverse effects, while incurring unnecessary healthcare expenditure. Our objective was to determine PPI usage in Australia since 2002 and review international studies investigating inappropriate PPI prescribing, including those that discussed interventions to address this issue. Methods Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) data were analysed. A narrative literature review relevant to the objective was conducted. Time series analysis was also used to examine the trend of reported PPI appropriate use across the international studies included in this review. Results and discussion Proton pump inhibitor use in Australia increased between 2002 and 2010 and then gradually decreased. Estimates of the extent of inappropriate use in the international literature had a wide variation (11‐84%). There appeared to be little change in the extent of appropriate PPI use reported through 34 international studies from 2000 to 2016. Interventions to address inappropriate use included patient‐centred deprescribing, academic detailing, educational programmes and drug safety notifications. What is new and Conclusion Proton pump inhibitors continue to be overused worldwide and should be a focus for deprescribing programmes. Ongoing education and awareness campaigns for health professionals and patients, including electronic reminders at the point of prescribing, are strategies that have potential to reduce PPI use in individuals who do not have an evidence‐based clinical indication for their long‐term use.

Background: To introduce and evaluate a university vaccination training program, preparing final year Bachelor of Pharmacy (BPharm) and Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) students to administer vaccinations to children and adults in community pharmacy and offsite (mobile and outreach) settings. Methods: Final year BPharm and MPharm students were trained to administer intramuscular vaccinations to adults and children. The education program embedded in pharmacy degree curriculum was congruent with the requirements of the Australian National Immunisation Education Framework. The training used a mix of pedagogies including online learning; interactive lectures; and simulation, which included augmented reality and role play. All pharmacy students completing the program in 2019 were required to carry out pre- and post-knowledge assessments. Student skill of vaccination was assessed using an objective structured clinical assessment rubric. Students were invited to complete pre and post questionnaires on confidence. The post questionnaire incorporated student evaluation of learning experience questions. Results: In both cohorts, student vaccination knowledge increased significantly after the completion of the vaccination training program; pre-intervention and post-intervention mean knowledge score (SD) of BPharm and MPharm were (14.3 ± 2.7 vs. 22.7 ± 3.3; p < 0.001) and (15.7 ± 2.9 vs. 21.4 ± 3.2; p < 0.001) respectively. There was no difference between the BPharm and MPharm in the overall knowledge test scores, (p = 0.81; p = 0.95) pre and post scores respectively. Using the OSCA rubric, all students (n = 52) were identified as competent in the skill of injection and could administer an IM deltoid injection to a child and adult mannequin. Students agreed that the training increased their self-confidence to administer injections to both children and adults. Students found value in the use of mixed reality to enhance student understanding of the anatomy of injection sites. Conclusion: The developed vaccination training program improved both student knowledge and confidence. Pharmacy students who complete such training should be able to administer vaccinations to children and adults, improving workforce capability. Mixed reality in the education of pharmacy students can be used to improve student satisfaction and enhance learning.

Background: Asthma is principally managed in general practice. Appropriate prescribing and medication use are essential, so general practice pharmacists appear suitable to conduct asthma management consultations. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the asthma management role of a pharmacist in general practice. Methods: Analysis of an activity diary and stakeholder interviews were conducted to identify interventions in asthma management; determine whether asthma control changed following pharmacist input; and determine acceptability of asthma management review by a pharmacist in one general practice in Canberra, Australia. Results: Over 13 months, the pharmacist saw 136 individual patients. The most common activities were asthma control assessment; recommendations to adjust medication or device; counselling on correct device use; asthma action plan development and trigger avoidance. For patients with multiple consultations, the mean Asthma Control Test score improved from the initial to last visit (14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 19.3 ± 4.7, n = 23, p < 0.0001). Eight of the 19 (42%) patients moved from having poor to well-controlled asthma. Case studies and qualitative data indicated probable hospital admission avoidance and stakeholder acceptability of asthma management by a practice pharmacist. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated it is feasible, acceptable and potentially beneficial to have a general practice pharmacist involved in asthma management. Fuller evaluation is warranted.

As team-based care continues to evolve, pharmacists have been included in general practice teams in many countries, to varying extents, to improve medication use and patient safety. However, evidence on interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of pharmacists in general practice is sparse. This study aimed to compare the extent of interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists in Australia with international sites (Canada and the UK), and identify the factors associated with interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness. General practice pharmacists from Australia, Canada, and the UK were identified through professional organisations and networks, and invited to participate in an online survey, adapted from existing validated tools. The survey explored interprofessional collaboration through four sub-domains (professional interactions, relationship initiation, trust and role clarity, and commitment to collaboration) and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists. Of the 101 respondents (26 from Australia, 44 from Canada and 31 from the UK), 79% were female and 78% were aged below 50 years. Interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness appeared to be high and similar between countries. Total scores for collaboration of pharmacists were 86.1 ± 7.4 in Australia, 88.5 ± 7.5 in the UK, and 89.1 ± 7.3 in Canada (mean ± SD, where higher scores represent more advanced collaboration), while the team effectiveness scores of the pharmacists were 88.6 ± 14.6 in Canada, 91.8 ± 14.6 in Australia and 97.5 ± 14.0 in the UK. Pharmacists who had worked in general practice for a longer time showed advanced interprofessional collaboration while those who worked exclusively in general practice had higher scores for team effectiveness. Overall, general practice pharmacists in the three countries were highly collaborative with general practitioners. Long-term employment and longer work hours could enhance interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness in general practice pharmacists by improving trust and working relationships over time.