Objectives: To determine the current and possible future utilisation of pharmacy technicians in clinical pharmacy support roles in Australia. To use the information to develop a set of potential support tasks for pharmacy technicians working under the supervision of clinical pharmacists.

Background The “Pharmacy Technician and Assistant Role Redesign within Australian Hospitals Project” outcomes were released in November 2016. Aim To assess pharmacy staff attitudes towards expanded hospital pharmacy technician (HPT) roles in a Victorian metropolitan teaching hospital. Method An electronic questionnaire circulated to all pharmacists, interns and HPTs remained open for 4 weeks during September 2018. Questions focused on three key domains: HPT involvement in final accuracy checking of inpatient supplies and manufactured items, drugs of addiction (DA) management and clinical support roles. The hospital's Office for Research deemed the study a quality improvement activity. Results The questionnaire was undertaken by 61 of 122 (50%) pharmacy staff. Fewer than 10% of respondents believed that HPTs are adequately used in current practice. Final accuracy checking technicians for inpatient medication supplies was supported by 82% of respondents. HPTs signing entries into dispensary DA registers for discharge and outpatient prescriptions was supported by 81% of respondents. Best possible medication history taking conducted by an HPT was supported by 52% of respondents, but support differed between pharmacists and HPTs, with 38 and 92% supportive, respectively (p < 0.01). Forty percent of respondents supported HPT involvement in patient medication counselling. Key themes identified from qualitative data included: the need for clarification of legal and indemnity issues, training and credentialing and professional attributes for expanded HPT roles. Conclusion These findings are informing HPT role expansion within the pharmacy department and have identified potential barriers to change. Such findings may be useful to pharmacy departments undertaking similar role redesign work.

Pre-registrant pharmacists at Austin Health have traditionally learned clinical pharmacy skills, through rotations under the supervision of clinical pharmacists. Although this process resulted in conscientious clinical pharmacists, they were accustomed to looking after only 6 patients at a time. In 2006, a new rotation was introduced that involved supervised, semi-independent work on a dedicated pre-registrant ward. The semi-independent experience relied on a clinical training and competency assessment prior to rotation on the pre-registrant ward. The preregistrant ward experience was well received by all involved (pre-registrant pharmacists, supervising pharmacists, nurses, doctors) and will be repeated in future years. The experience allowed the pre-registrant pharmacists to learn skills, such as time management, organisation, customer service and communication. They also required less time post-registration to adjust to a full clinical workload. J Pharm Pract Res 2008; 38: 47-50.

Background Despite evidence to support pharmacists practicing in advanced scope roles, embedding such roles into practice is challenging. Upskilling hospital pharmacy technicians (HPTs) to undertake selected clinical support roles under indirect supervision could relieve pharmacists from non‐complex tasks. Aim To compare patient satisfaction with routine postoperative discharge medication education provided by a HPT or pharmacists in a short‐stay surgery setting. Method An HPT completed a comprehensive training program to become a credentialed medication education technician (MEdTech). Consecutive overnight‐staying patients were assigned to receive education by the MEdTech or pharmacists according to staff availability. Patient satisfaction with their education experience was measured via telephone calls the day following discharge. The hospital’s Research Office approved this study as quality improvement. Results Overall, 341 patients were screened and 217 met all inclusion criteria. Two hundred patients provided feedback (100 educated by the MEdTech and 100 by pharmacists). All patients reported high levels of overall satisfaction with their education experience, irrespective of which pharmacy staff member provided the education; a finding supported by the qualitative feedback. Significantly more MEdTech‐educated patients were very satisfied with the amount of information provided (92% vs 79%) and ease of following the education (97% vs 86%) than pharmacist‐educated patients, respectively. Conclusion This study supports advanced practice HPTs assisting with the provision of medication information to patients. This novel workforce model could facilitate pharmacists working in advanced‐scope roles by having advanced HPTs undertake uncomplicated aspects of clinical pharmacy within a defined scope of practice and with specific pharmacist referral criteria.