Search

Background Intensive smoking cessation interventions initiated during hospitalisation are effective, but currently not widely available. Strategies are needed to integrate smoking cessation treatment into routine inpatient care. Pharmacist-led interventions for smoking cessation are feasible and efficacious in both ambulatory and community pharmacy settings. However, there is a lack of evidence from large scale studies of the effectiveness of pharmacist guided programs initiated during patient hospitalisation in achieving long-term abstinence. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led system change intervention initiated during hospitalisation in Australian public hospitals. Methods/design A multi-centre, randomised controlled trial will be conducted with 12 months follow-up. Smokers, 18 years or older, will be recruited from the wards of three Victorian public hospitals. Participants will be randomly assigned to a usual care or intervention group using a computer generated randomisation list. The intervention group will receive at least three smoking cessation support sessions by a trained pharmacist: the first during the hospital stay, the second on or immediately after discharge and the third within one month post-discharge. All smoking cessation medications will be provided free of charge during the hospital stay and for at least one week after discharge. Participants randomised to usual care will receive the current care routinely provided by the hospital. All measurements at baseline, discharge, one, six and 12 months will be performed by a blinded Research Assistant. The primary outcome measures are carbon monoxide validated 7-day point prevalence abstinence at six and 12 months. Discussion This is the first large scale study to develop and test a pharmacist-led system change intervention program initiated during patient hospitalisation. If successful, the program could be considered for wider implementation across other hospitals. Trial registration ACTRN12612000368831

This study examines the impacts of the General Equivalency Diploma (GED) certificate and other secondary and post-secondary credentials on labor market outcomes for women. It uses data from the NLSY Mother and Children file and the Washington State Family Income Study (FIS). Correcting for sample selection and endogeneity bias of welfare recipiency, we find that one cannot distinguish between secondary dropouts, GED recipients, and secondary graduates in hours of work. Results on hourly wage rates are mixed. For the FIS sample, GED recipients, secondary graduates, and secondary dropouts earn the same wage. For the NLSY, GED recipients fare better than dropouts, but worse than secondary graduates. Job experience explains the wage gap between GED recipients and graduates, but its explanatory power is dominated by controlling for years of education or AFQT. Differences in years of education and AFQT scores are responsible for the observed wage differences among GED recipients, secondary graduates, and secondary dropouts.

Background Legislative change and a university course to credential pharmacist prescribers are needed to move the pharmacist prescribing agenda forward in Australia. Non-medical prescribing courses in the UK aim to produce safe and competent prescribers who understand the prescribing process, know their limitations and practice within their area of competence. As no equivalent course exists in Australia there was interest in exploring whether a UK non-medical prescribing course could be adopted for the Australian environment. Aim To pilot a UK non-medical prescribing course for Australian hospital pharmacists and to elicit participants' views on non-medical prescribing and experiences of the training. Method The Department of Pharmacy Practice, Monash University hosted a non-medical prescribing course accredited by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain to credential pharmacists as supplementary and independent prescribers. 15 hospital pharmacists undertook the course over 9 months from September 2008. Participating pharmacists were either undertaking or planning to undertake advanced practitioner roles. Pharmacists' views on prescribing and credentialling were explored in 3 focus groups. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using NVivo 8. Results Participants identified positive themes of their understanding of non-medical prescribing and where it could lead, i.e. growth in self-confidence to undertake a new role and improved competency in communication and consultation skills. Negative themes related to legislative constraints, acceptance by other health professionals, assessment requirements for the Period of Learning in Practice and university documentation. Participants also stressed the need for the course to be customised to the Australian setting. Conclusion This first experience of a course to develop pharmacist prescribing was positive but challenging and can assist the future development of an accredited Australian course for pharmacist prescribers.