Current studentsExisting staffContact us
 

Stakeholders' views of UK nurse and pharmacist supplementary prescribing

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorCooper, R.
dc.contributor.authorAnderson, C.
dc.contributor.authorAvery, T.
dc.contributor.authorBissell, P.
dc.contributor.authorGuillaume, L.
dc.contributor.authorHutchinson, A.
dc.contributor.authorLymn, J.
dc.contributor.authorRatcliffe, J.
dc.contributor.authorWard, P.
dc.date.issued2008
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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. Conclusion: 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. Method: 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. Results: 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 Future challenges and implications for policy included SP being potentially superseded by independent nurse and pharmacist prescribing, and the need to improve awareness of SP.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.
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Health Services Research and Policy, 2008; 13(4):215-221
dc.identifier.doi10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008004
dc.identifier.issn1355-8196
dc.identifier.issn1758-1060
dc.identifier.orcidRatcliffe, J. [0000-0001-7365-1988]
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.8/152969
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSage Publications Ltd
dc.rightsCopyright 2008 Royal Society of Medicine
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008004
dc.subjectsupplementary prescribing
dc.subjectnon-medical prescribing
dc.subjecteconomic impact
dc.subjectpatient safety
dc.subjectpatient access to medicines
dc.subjectNurses
dc.subjectPharmacists
dc.subjectState Medicine
dc.subjectHealth Services Accessibility
dc.subjectInterviews as Topic
dc.subjectDrug Prescriptions
dc.subjectUnited Kingdom
dc.titleStakeholders' views of UK nurse and pharmacist supplementary prescribing
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished
ror.mmsid9915910832701831

Files

Collections