The Oncology Pharmacy Team (OPT), consisting of specialty-trained pharmacists and/or pharmacy technicians, is an integral component of the multidisciplinary healthcare team (MHT) involved with all aspects of cancer patient care. The OPT fosters quality patient care, safety, and local regulatory compliance. The International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) developed this position statement to provide guidance on five key areas: 1) oncology pharmacy practice as a pharmacy specialty; 2) contributions to patient care; 3) oncology pharmacy practice management; 4) education and training; and 5) contributions to oncology research and quality initiatives to involve the OPT. This position statement advocates that: 1) the OPT be fully incorporated into the MHT to optimize patient care; 2) educational and healthcare institutions develop programs to continually educate OPT members; and 3) regulatory authorities develop certification programs to recognize the unique contributions of the OPT in cancer patient care.

Background: Healthcare professionals’ vaccine recommendation is the most effective method to increase vaccination rates of the community. The vaccine counseling and recommendation behavior of pharmacists, who are among the easily accessible healthcare professionals, are influenced by their knowledge and attitudes about vaccines. Aim: It was aimed to investigate community pharmacists’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding commonly used vaccines. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted as an online survey with a sample of 1100 community pharmacists in Turkey. Pharmacists were invited to participate in the study by phone calls. A structured survey, which consists of 40 questions to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding vaccines, was sent to the e-mail addresses of pharmacists who volunteered to participate in the study. Findings: A total of 430 pharmacists completed the survey. Thirty percent of pharmacists had lack of knowledge about vaccination during pregnancy, whereas 52.2% and 31.4% of pharmacists believed that tetanus and influenza vaccines should be provided during pregnancy, respectively. Nearly 89% of pharmacists recommended vaccines to patients, mainly for influenza vaccine (83.9%). Only 31.5% of pharmacists had been vaccinated against influenza in the last season, whereas 50.5% had never been vaccinated. Pharmacists who had been vaccinated with influenza vaccine had a high rate of recommending influenza vaccines to the patients. Conclusion: The present study found that vaccination among pharmacists in Turkey and their knowledge on vaccination during pregnancy were low. Further education of pharmacists to improve their knowledge and attitudes toward vaccines is needed.

Introduction: Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism creates a big burden on both patients and healthcare systems. Clinical guidelines have a consensus on the initiation of prophylactic treatment for hospitalised patients, however a debate still exists for ambulatory cancer patients. Therefore, this study aimed to identify attitudes and practices of medical oncologists on cancer-associated venous thromboembolism management. Methods: An online survey consisting of 22 questions was developed by researchers in the view of previous studies and delivered to 100 medical oncologists registered to the national society of medical oncology by e-mail between September and October 2018. Descriptive and statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0 (ICM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). Results: A total of 62 medical oncologists (75.8% male) responded to the survey (response rate of 62%). The most critical three risk factors considered for initiating prophylaxis were prior venous thromboembolism history, immobilisation and tumour/cancer type for inpatients and outpatients (χ² test, p < 0.001). The first choice of drug for prophylaxis was mostly low molecular weight heparins ( n = 60, 96.8%). In the absence of contraindications, physicians initiate prophylaxis ‘usually’ for inpatients ( n = 25, 40.3%) and outpatients ( n = 5, 8.1%). However routine use of the Khorana score is not incorporated into the risk assessment process of cancer patients. Conclusion: Attitudes of oncologists towards thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients are consistent with previous studies in the literature. The respondents are aware of the venous thromboembolism risk of cancer patients, however raising awareness on both cancer-associated venous thromboembolism and current guideline recommendations is needed.