Assessing the contribution of prescribing in primary care by nurses and professionals allied to medicine: a systematic review of literature

Faculty of Health & Social Care Sciences, St. George's University of London & Kingston University, Grosvenor Wing, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
BMC Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 1.66). 12/2011; 11:330. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-330
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Safe and timely access to effective and appropriate medication through primary care settings is a major concern for all countries addressing both acute and chronic disease burdens. Legislation for nurses and other professionals allied to medicine to prescribe exists in a minority of countries, with more considering introducing legislation. Although there is variation in the range of medicines permitted to be prescribed, questions remain as to the contribution prescribing by nurses and professionals allied to medicine makes to the care of patients in primary care and what is the evidence on which clinicians, commissioners of services and policy makers can consider this innovation.
A integrative review of literature on non-medical prescribing in primary care was undertaken guided by dimensions of health care quality: effectiveness, acceptability, efficiency and access.
19 papers of 17 empirical studies were identified which provided evidence of patient outcome of non medical prescribing in primary care settings. The majority were undertaken in the UK with only one each from the USA, Canada, Botswana and Zimbabwe. Only two studies investigated clinical outcomes of non-medical prescribing. Seven papers reported on qualitative designs and four of these had fewer than ten participants. Most studies reported that non medical prescribing was widely accepted and viewed positively by patients and professionals.
Primary health care is the setting where timely access to safe and appropriate medicines is most critical for the well-being of any population. The gradual growth over time of legislative authority and in the numbers of non-medical prescribers, particularly nurses, in some countries suggests that the acceptability of non-medical prescribing is based on the perceived value to the health care system as a whole. Our review suggests that there are substantial gaps in the knowledge base to help evidence based policy making in this arena. We suggest that future studies of non-medical prescribing in primary care focus on the broad range of patient and health service outcomes and include economic dimensions.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The massive scarcity of physicians in India, mainly in rural areas, prompted the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to propose a three-and-a-half year Bachelor of Rural Health and Care degree designed exclusively to serve rural populations. The fierce opposition by powerful medical lobbies forced the proposal to fade away. This paper emphasises the importance of "task shifting" and "non-physician prescribing" in the global context and argues that non-physician healthcare providers would not only increase availability and accessibility to rural healthcare, but also provide an empowered second line of authority, adding to the checks and balances to the exploitative prestige-based hierarchy that pervades this knowledge-intensive service. T he world is facing severe shortage of healthcare profes-sionals on the face of the ever-increasing burden of non-communicable chronic morbidities. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that 57 countries are experien-cing alarmingly low levels of trained health personnel. 1 While a few Asian countries have the required doctor-patient ratio per 1,000 (Japan 2.1, Korea 2, Singapore 1.8 and China 1.4), India has only 0.69 doctors/1,000. 2 WHO estimates that India cannot achieve the recommended target of "one doctor per 1,000 people" till 2028 (Sinha 2012a). India has two healthcare professionals per 1,000 people against the WHO's recommendation of 2.8/1,000. The fi gure drops to 1.4/1,000 on removing census errors from self-reporting of false qualifi cations. Lancet suggests that the Indian health force, if adjusted for qualifi cation gaps, may be only a quarter of WHO targets (Rao et al 2011). While India is short of six lakh doctors, 10 lakh nurses, and two lakh dental surgeons, 40,000 Indian doctors are serving 50% of the British population, and around 50,000 Indian doc-tors are working in the United States (US). About 20% and 10% doctors in Australia and Canada, respectively have received their MBBS degree from India. Reports suggest that 1,157 Indian doctors migrated abroad between April 2010 and March 2011 (Duttagupta 2012; Sinha 2012b). Mass migrations appear to be a problem shared by developing nations as a whole; for instance, WHO reports that 34% of Zimbabwean nurses and 29% of Ghana's physicians are working abroad (Hooper 2008). More importantly, rural India, with 70% of the population, has only 0.39 doctors/1,000 people against 1.33 for urban. Of the available 6,77,000 doctors, 70% work in urban health-settings (Rao et al 2011). This uneven rural-urban distribution is worsened by a "prestige-based hierarchy" in which physi-cians dominate and undermine the potential contributions from non-physician healthcare professionals.
    Economic and political weekly 03/2013; XLVIII(13):112-117.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In 2008, we conducted a systematic review on the effects of nurse prescribing using studies with a comparative design. In view of the growing number of countries that are introducing nurse prescribing and the fact that several studies into nurse prescribing have been conducted recently, there is a need for an updated review to reassess the available information on the effects of nurse prescribing when compared to physician prescribing. Objective To identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence on the effects of nurse prescribing when compared to physician prescribing on the quantity and types of medication prescribed and on patient outcomes. Design A systematic review. Data sources: In addition to the previous review, which covered the literature up to 2005, eleven literature databases and four websites were searched for relevant studies from January 2006 up to January 2012 without limitations as to language or country. Moreover, full text copies of all studies included in the previous review were reviewed. Review methods: A three-stage inclusion process, consisting of an initial sifting, checking full-text papers for inclusion criteria and methodological assessment, was performed independently by two reviewers. Data on effects were synthesised using narrative and tabular methods. Results Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. All but five studies had a high risk of bias. Nurses prescribe in comparable ways to physicians. They prescribe for equal numbers of patients and prescribe comparable types and doses of medicines. Studies comparing the total amount of medication prescribed by nurses and doctors show mixed results. There appear to be few differences between nurses and physicians in patient health outcomes: clinical parameters were the same or better for treatment by nurses, perceived quality of care was similar or better and patients treated by nurses were just as satisfied or more satisfied. Conclusions The effects of nurse prescribing on medication and patient outcomes seem positive when compared to physician prescribing. However, conclusions must remain tentative due to methodological weaknesses in this body of research. More randomised controlled designs in the field of nurse prescribing are required for definitive conclusions about the effects of nurse prescribing.
    International journal of nursing studies 01/2013; 51(7). DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.003 · 2.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Kathy Davis and Vari Drennan summarise the results of an investigation into the prescribing behaviours of community-based nurses and GPs, using prescribing in constipation as a case study (Davis and Drennan, 2007).
    Nursing times 01/2008; 104(5):46, 48.