Objective: In rural Australia access to doctors is limited, access to respiratory physicians even more so and these are the traditional sources of lung function testing.The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of training and supporting existing rural primary healthcare providers in lung function testing as a screening and monitoring mechanism due to the shortage of healthcare professionals capable of providing such a service.Methodology: As pharmacists are readily accessible healthcare professionals, they were trained in spirometry measurement and supported with ongoing quality assurance by respiratory scientists. Spirometers were provided to the pharmacists. People purchasing respiratory medications or responding to advertising about the service were tested after giving informed consent. Spirometic assessments were assessed for accuracy and reproducibility. Participants’ spirometry results were reviewed and those with abnormal test results were referred to their doctor.Results: Pharmacists were able to competently develop the skills necessary for providing spirometry measurement as a screening and monitoring technique. The level of competence exceeded that reported in previously published studies. Pharmacists were able to successfully identify spirometry results within the normal range.Conclusions: Training and supporting accessible healthcare professionals to provide lung function testing increases access in areas of need and has implications for respiratory morbidity and mortality in such settings.

Background: Asthma has been recognised as a poorly managed disease state in Australia. Rural areas have been identified as being under‐serviced by health professionals. Pharmacists in rural areas are in a prime position to be involved in the provision of multidisciplinary asthma care.Aim: This study investigated the impact of spirometry screening on asthma management by pharmacists in rural areas.Method: A two‐group (intervention: n = 141, control: n = 46) multicentre study design was utilised. The control group was provided with a standard medication review while the intervention group received spirometry testing and a medication review. The study protocol required pharmacists to refer participants to a doctor if required, based on spirometry or medication review results. The researchers assessed asthma severity and adequacy of asthma medication.Results: Spirometry as an intervention attracted participants to the study pharmacies and provided an opportunity for pharmacists to screen and refer a group who may otherwise be overlooked. Medication review identified suboptimal therapy, potentially contraindicated drug combinations and adverse drug reactions.Conclusion: Spirometry adds benefit to the provision of pharmaceutical care for people with asthma. This may have additional significance in rural areas where access to other health services is limited.