Aim To identify Australian pharmacists' awareness of their international colleagues' prescribing practices and explore their views about the feasibility and utility of pharmacist prescribing privileges within the scope of their current practice. Method Members of the AusPharmList, Australian Association of Consultant Pharmacy and The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia were invited by e‐mail to participate in a community pharmacist, consultant pharmacist or hospital pharmacist electronic survey. These surveys were designed to elicit views concerning: dependent and independent prescribing; resource availability to support pharmacist prescribing; ability to justify prescribing decisions; and limitations of pharmacist prescribing. Results Of the 268 surveys completed (response rate 6.4%), 45% of respondents were aware of their international colleagues' prescribing activities. 74% agreed that pharmacists should be granted dependent prescribing authority, while 52% agreed that pharmacists should be granted independent prescribing authority. The majority (88%) indicated they could identify their own limitations and 86% believed they could justify their prescribing decisions as dependent prescribers. 73% believed they would benefit from prescribing authority in their daily scope of practice. Conclusion In 2004, awareness of international developments in pharmacist prescribing was not extensive among the respondents. However, many identified areas where they would benefit from dependent prescribing activities in their daily scope of practice.

Aim: To evaluate the literature describing pharmacist prescribing activities and identify areas in need of further research.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Saliva has been considered a suitable sample material for SARS-CoV-2 testing but uncertainty remained regarding the sensitivity and reliability of different saliva collection methods for community mass testing. This study aimed to investigate the potential utility of expectorated saliva (ES) and drooled saliva (DS) through a large cohort study. Methods ES and DS samples were collected in a two-stage non-randomized prospective cohort study. Their utility for SARS-CoV-2 RNA qRT-PCR testing was assessed by comparison with results for combined throat and nose (CTN) swabs. A total of 2,878 subjects were recruited, from which 2,747 were evaluable for statistical analyses. Results Using CTN swab-based results as reference,DS- and ES-based tests showed the same high level of concordance (98% vs 98%) or specificity (99% vs 99%). Sensitivity seemed to be higher for DS than for ES (93% vs 80%) but not significantly once viral concentration was taken into account. Multivariable analysis indicated however an inferior sensitivity of saliva-based testing for female compared to male subjects with low viral burden. Assuming no false positive qRT-PCR results, an unbiased comparison showed no significant difference in sensitivity between saliva- and swab-based testing. Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing based on saliva showed high diagnostic accuracy and can be considered an alternative where swabbing may not be tolerated or operationally feasible. Drooled saliva yielded the same diagnostic performance compared to expectorated saliva and may present a preferred option with reduced aerosol risk and increased compliance. Observed sex-specific difference in detection performance however warrant further investigations.