Publications (47) View all
-
Article: Learning to prescribe - pharmacists' experiences of supplementary prescribing training in England.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The introduction of non-medical prescribing for professions such as pharmacy and nursing in recent years offers additional responsibilities and opportunities but attendant training issues. In the UK and in contrast to some international models, becoming a non-medical prescriber involves the completion of an accredited training course offered by many higher education institutions, where the skills and knowledge necessary for prescribing are learnt. Aims: to explore pharmacists' perceptions and experiences of learning to prescribe on supplementary prescribing (SP) courses, particularly in relation to inter-professional learning, course content and subsequent use of prescribing in practice. A postal questionnaire survey was sent to all 808 SP registered pharmacists in England in April 2007, exploring demographic, training, prescribing, safety culture and general perceptions of SP. After one follow-up, 411 (51%) of pharmacists responded. 82% agreed SP training was useful, 58% agreed courses provided appropriate knowledge and 62% agreed that the necessary prescribing skills were gained. Clinical examination, consultation skills training and practical experience with doctors were valued highly; pharmacology training and some aspects of course delivery were criticised. Mixed views on inter-professional learning were reported - insights into other professions being valued but knowledge and skills differences considered problematic. 67% believed SP and recent independent prescribing (IP) should be taught together, with more diagnostic training wanted; few pharmacists trained in IP, but many were training or intending to train. There was no association between pharmacists' attitudes towards prescribing training and when they undertook training between 2004 and 2007 but earlier cohorts were more likely to be using supplementary prescribing in practice. Pharmacists appeared to value their SP training and suggested improvements that could inform future courses. The benefits of inter-professional learning, however, may conflict with providing profession-specific training. SP training may be perceived to be an instrumental 'stepping stone' in pharmacists' professional project of gaining full IP status.BMC Medical Education 01/2009; 8:57. · 1.15 Impact Factor -
Article: Supplementary prescribing by community and primary care pharmacists: an analysis of PACT data, 2004-2006.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Pharmacist prescribing is a relatively new initiative in the extension of prescribing responsibilities to non-medical healthcare professionals. Pharmacist supplementary prescribing was introduced in 2003 and allowed prescribing in accordance with a clinical management plan agreed with a medical practitioner and patient to improve patient access to medicines and better utilize the skills of healthcare professionals. The objective of this research was to examine the volume, cost and trends in pharmacist prescribing in community and primary care using Prescription Analysis and Cost (PACT) data and to suggest possible reasons for the trends. Using PACT data at national, chapter and subchapter level for 2004-2006 the volume, costs and trends for pharmacist prescribing were obtained. Supplemental data and statistical analysis from other sources, relating to prescribing of individual drugs, were also utilized. The total number of items prescribed by pharmacists in community and primary care increased from 2706 in 2004 to 31 052 in 2006. In 2006, pharmacist prescribing represented only 0.004% of all prescribing in the community and primary care setting. Cardiovascular medicines were the most frequently prescribed therapeutic class followed by central nervous system, respiratory, endocrine and gastrointestinal medicines. Pharmacist prescribing is increasing but represents an extremely small proportion of primary care prescribing. PACT data between 2004 and 2006 reflects pharmacist supplementary prescribing alone and has been in the anticipated therapeutic areas of drugs which treat chronic conditions such as hypertension.Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics 03/2008; 33(1):11-6. · 1.57 Impact Factor -
Article: Stakeholders' views of UK nurse and pharmacist supplementary prescribing.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Supplementary prescribing (SP) by pharmacists and nurses in the UK represents a unique approach to improving patients' access to medicines and better utilizing health care professionals' skills. Study aims were to explore the views of stakeholders involved in SP policy, training and practice, focusing upon issues such as SP benefits, facilitators, challenges, safety and costs, thereby informing future practice and policy. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 43 purposively sampled UK stakeholders, including pharmacist and nurse supplementary prescribers, doctors, patient groups representatives, academics and policy developers. Analysis of transcribed interviews was undertaken using a process of constant comparison and framework analysis, with coding of emergent themes. Stakeholders generally viewed SP positively and perceived benefits in terms of improved access to medicines and fewer delays, along with a range of facilitators and barriers to the implementation of this form of non-medical prescribing. Stakeholders' views on the economic impact of SP varied, but safety concerns were not considered significant. Future challenges and implications for policy included SP being potentially superseded by independent nurse and pharmacist prescribing, and the need to improve awareness of SP. Several potential tensions emerged including nurses' versus pharmacists' existing skills and training needs, supplementary versus independent prescribing, SP theory versus practice and prescribers versus non-prescribing peers. SP appeared to be broadly welcomed by stakeholders and was perceived to offer patient benefits. Several years after its introduction in the UK, stakeholders still perceived several implementation barriers and challenges and these, together with various tensions identified, might affect the success of supplementary and other forms of non-medical prescribing.Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 11/2008; 13(4):215-21. · 1.73 Impact Factor -
Article: Nonmedical prescribing in the United kingdom: developments and stakeholder interests.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article reflects upon the introduction of nonmedical prescribing in the United Kingdom and describes the historical developments within the National Health Service over the last 2 decades, together with an assessment of the impact of this prescribing for various stakeholders, drawing upon relevant research. We argue that a number of issues are associated with the introduction and development of nonmedical prescribing, including benefits to patients, the promise of increased autonomy for professions such as nursing and pharmacy, explicit and implicit government objectives, and threats to medical dominance and autonomy.The Journal of ambulatory care management 06/2008; 31(3):244-52. -
Article: Nurse and pharmacist supplementary prescribing in the UK--a thematic review of the literature.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Supplementary prescribing (SP) represents a recent development in non-medical prescribing in the UK, involving a tripartite agreement between independent medical prescriber, dependent prescriber and patient, enabling the dependent prescriber to prescribe in accordance with a patient-specific clinical management plan (CMP). The aim in this paper is to review, thematically, the literature on nurse and pharmacist SP, to inform further research, policy and education. A review of the nursing and pharmacy SP literature from 1997 to 2007 was undertaken using searches of electronic databases, grey literature and journal hand searches. Nurses and pharmacists were positive about SP but the medical profession were more critical and lacked awareness/understanding, according to the identified literature. SP was identified in many clinical settings but implementation barriers emerged from the empirical and anecdotal literature, including funding problems, delays in practicing and obtaining prescription pads, encumbering clinical management plans and access to records. Empirical studies were often methodological weaknesses and under-evaluation of safety, economic analysis and patients' experiences were identified in empirical studies. There was a perception that nurse and pharmacist independent prescribing may supersede supplementary prescribing. There is a need for additional research regarding SP and despite nurses' and pharmacists' enthusiasm, implementation issues, medical apathy and independent prescribing potentially undermine the success of SP.Health Policy 04/2008; 85(3):277-92. · 1.51 Impact Factor
