Resurgence in diseases such as measles and diphtheria highlight the real-world consequences of worrying ongoing declines in vaccination coverage in Australia. While the RACGP strongly advocates against relying on pharmacists to address this, many frontline GPs see potential for them to be part of the solution. But there’s one major caveat.
When it comes to pharmacist-led immunisation, continuity of care is among GPs’ biggest concerns, according to a national Healthed survey this week with 1200 respondents and counting.
The vast majority of GPs said the patient’s usual GP (96%) – or practice nurse (87%) or another GP (84%) from their usual clinic – is best-placed to provide immunisations.
But most are supportive of patients getting vaccines from a community nurse (63%) or their usual pharmacist (60%). In fact, more GPs would prefer patients see their usual pharmacist for vaccinations than a GP from a clinic the patient doesn’t regularly attend.
However, this support drops dramatically to the least preferred option if the pharmacist administering the vaccine is NOT the patient’s regular pharmacist. Only 30% of GPs are supportive of that scenario, while 37% are unsupportive and 30% are neutral.
Improved convenience, accessibility and vaccination uptake are the biggest positives GPs see with pharmacist-led immunisations – while missing out on opportunistic health checks and fragmentation of care or loss of continuity of care are the biggest negatives, the survey found.
RACGP president Dr Michael Wright said vaccination is part of a broader healthcare picture that includes medical history, comorbidities, medication interactions, and follow-up care, with GPs trained to identify contraindications, manage adverse reactions, and ensure patients receive the right vaccine at the right time.
“When vaccinations occur outside a patient’s usual general practice, there is a risk that important health information is not captured in one place,” Dr Wright told Healthed.
“This can lead to gaps in immunisation records, missed opportunities for preventive care, and potential safety risks. We support measures that improve access to care, but not at the expense of safety or continuity. The best outcomes for patients occur when care is coordinated through their regular GP,” he said.
This position does reflect genuine concerns GPs have, but only one in four GPs say they don’t see any clear benefits to pharmacist-led immunisation at all.
Many GPs who support a wider range of health professionals administering vaccines did add caveats – specifying that it’s essential that the immunisations are recorded on AIR, and that the practitioner is aware of the patient’s history, for example.
It’s already mandatory for all vaccination providers to report administration of COVID-19, influenza, NIP and Japanese encephalitis virus vaccines to the AIR.
Supportive of pharmacists administering vaccines
“Any method of increasing vaccination rates is a good method.”
“Anything to reduce GP workload will help.”
“As long as the patient gets immunised properly and it is documented properly, it is OK who does it.”
“The more the merrier. Make it accessible convenient quick opportunistic cheap.”
“Would encourage any suitably knowledgeable and qualified health professional who is in the position to offer vaccinations to do so, as long as they astutely record that on the AIR, so it is available to all of the patient’s other health providers.”
Continuity of care is what matters most
“Fragmentation of care is not ideal, patients should adhere to regular GP, regular practice, regular pharmacy/pharmacist, regular RNs.”
“I think it’s important to have continuity care. On the whole I support avenues that increase vaccination rates, but I am less in favour of providers who are not usually involved in the patient’s care being the drivers for vaccination.”
“If it’s not the usual GP, pharmacist or nurse, then the vaccination should be recorded on their immunisation record or given as a letter to the usual GP for continuation of care.”
“Immunisations should be administered by professionals who know the patient, their history, their current problems and possible contraindications to vaccines, their immunisation history and previous reactions to vaccines.”
Concerned about pharmacists administering vaccines
“Any person administering vaccination needs to be updating AIR, consenting the patient, able to immediately manage rare vaccination adverse reactions. Community / retail pharmacists or allied health are not set up for managing side effects.”
“I am grumpy that pharmacists are being paid PER VACCINE to vaccinate, while we GPs can just charge a single level 3 consultation. Pharmacists are also not always well trained, and I am worried how they would manage adverse vaccine reactions if they were to happen at a pharmacy.”
“Pharmacists should stay in their lane. Pharmacies do not have the privacy to adequately take history, administer and monitor patients.”
“The major concern is – documentation of any side effects and who will manage them, and whether the appointment also factors in opportunistic health promotion and education on the benefits of vaccinations in general.”
“This creates issues like doubling vaccinations, AIR not being updated properly by other immunizers. AIR not being updated in practice software.”
As long as it’s quid pro quo
“I do not mind pharmacists doing my work (largely the easy bits) if I could do their work i.e. dispense medications under PBS.”
Listen to expert interviews.
Click to open in a new tab
Browse the latest articles from Healthed.
Once you confirm you’ve read this article you can complete a Patient Case Review to earn 0.5 hours CPD in the Reviewing Performance (RP) category.
Select ‘Confirm & learn‘ when you have read this article in its entirety and you will be taken to begin your Patient Case Review.
