IntroductionNon-medical prescribing has the potential to deliver innovative healthcare within limited finances. However, uptake has been slow, and a proportion of non-medical prescribers do not use the qualification. This systematic review aimed to describe the facilitators and barriers to non-medical prescribing in the United Kingdom.MethodsThe systematic review and thematic analysis included qualitative and mixed methods papers reporting facilitators and barriers to independent non-medical prescribing in the United Kingdom. The following databases were searched to identify relevant papers: AMED, ASSIA, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, Open Grey, Open access theses and dissertations, and Web of Science. Papers published between 2006 and March 2017 were included. Studies were quality assessed using a validated tool (QATSDD), then underwent thematic analysis. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015019786).ResultsOf 3991 potentially relevant identified studies, 42 were eligible for inclusion. The studies were generally of moderate quality (83%), and most (71%) were published 2007–2012. The nursing profession dominated the studies (30/42). Thematic analysis identified three overarching themes: non-medical prescriber, human factors, and organisational aspects. Each theme consisted of several sub-themes; the four most highly mentioned were ‘medical professionals’, ‘area of competence’, ‘impact on time’ and ‘service’. Sub-themes were frequently interdependent on each other, having the potential to act as a barrier or facilitator depending on circumstances.DiscussionAddressing the identified themes and subthemes enables strategies to be developed to support and optimise non-medical prescribing. Further research is required to identify if similar themes are encountered by other non-medical prescribing groups than nurses and pharmacists.

PROSPERO CRD42015017212. [Noblet T, Marriott J, Graham-Clarke E, Rushton A (2017) Barriers to and facilitators of independent non-medical prescribing in clinical practice: a mixed-methods systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 63: 221-234].

Introduction Non-medical prescribing was introduced into the United Kingdom (UK) to improve patient care, through extending healthcare professionals’ roles. More recent government health service policy focuses on the increased demand and the need for efficiency. This systematic policy review aimed to describe any changes in government policy position and the role that non-medical prescribing plays in healthcare provision. Method The systematic policy review included policy and consultation documents that describe independent non-medical prescribing. A pre-defined protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015019786). Professional body websites, other relevant websites and the following databases were searched to identify relevant documents: HMIC, Lexis Nexis, UK Government Web Archive, UKOP, UK Parliamentary Papers and Web of Science. Documents published between 2006 and February 2018 were included. Results and discussion Following exclusions, 45 documents were selected for review; 23 relating to policy or strategy and 22 to consultations. Of the former, 13/23 were published 2006–2010 and the remainder since 2013. Two main themes were identified: chronological aspects and healthcare provision. In the former, a publication gap for policy documents resulted from a change in government and associated major healthcare service reorganisation. In the later, the role of non-medical prescribing was found to have evolved to support efficient service delivery, and cost reduction. For many professions, prescribing appears embedded into practice; however, the pharmacy profession continues to produce policy documents, suggesting that prescribing is not yet perceived as normal practice. Conclusion Prescribing appears to be more easily adopted into practice where it can form part of the overall care of the patient. Where new roles are required to be established, then prescribing takes longer to be universally adopted. While this review concerns policy and practice in the UK, the aspect of role adoption has wider potential implications.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP).DesignSystematic review. Two reviewers independently completed searches, eligibility assessment and assessment of risk of bias.Data sourcesPre-defined search terms/combinations were utilised to search electronic databases. In addition, hand searches of reference lists, key journals and grey literature were employed alongside consultation with authors/experts.Eligibility criteria for included studiesRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical or cost-effectiveness of NMP. Measurements reported on one or more outcome(s) of: pain, function, disability, health, social impact, patient-safety, costs-analysis, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), patient satisfaction, clinician perception of clinical and functional outcomes.ResultsThree RCTs from two countries were included (n = 932 participants) across primary and tertiary care settings. One RCT was assessed as low risk of bias, one as high risk of bias and one as unclear risk of bias. All RCTs evaluated clinical effectiveness with one also evaluating cost-effectiveness. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using a range of safety and patient-reported outcome measures. Participants demonstrated significant improvement in outcomes when receiving NMP compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in all RCTs. An associated cost analysis showed NMP to be more expensive than TAU (regression coefficient p = 0.0000), however experimental groups generated increased QALYs compared to TAU.ConclusionLimited evidence with overall unclear risk of bias exists evaluating clinical and cost-effectiveness of NMP across all professions and clinical settings. GRADE assessment revealed moderate quality evidence. Evidence suggests that NMP is safe and can provide beneficial clinical outcomes. Benefits to the health economy remain unclear, with the cost-effectiveness of NMP assessed by a single pilot RCT of low risk of bias. Adequately powered low risk of bias RCTs evaluating clinical and cost effectiveness are required to evaluate NMP across clinical specialities, professions and settings.RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42015017212).

Non-medical prescribing was introduced into the United Kingdom to improve patient care, but early research indicated a third of Allied Health Professionals may not use their prescribing qualification. A previous literature review, highlighting factors influencing prescribing, identified only papers with nursing and pharmacy participants. This investigation explored consensus on factors affecting physiotherapist and pharmacist non-medical prescribers. A three round Delphi study was conducted with pharmacist and physiotherapist prescribers. Round One comprised information gathering on facilitators and barriers to prescribing participants had experienced, and underwent content analysis. This was followed by two sequential consensus seeking rounds with participants asked to rate the importance of statements to themselves. Consensus criteria were determined a priori, including median, interquartile range, percentage agreement and Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance (W). Statements reaching consensus were ranked for importance in Round Three and analysed to produce top ten ranks for all participants and for each professional group. Participants, recruited October 2018, comprised 24 pharmacists and 18 physiotherapists. In Round One, content analysis of 172 statements regarding prescribing influences revealed 24 themes. 127 statements were included in Round Two for importance rating (barriers = 68, facilitators = 59). After Round Two, 29 statements reached consensus (barriers = 1, facilitators = 28), with no further statements reaching consensus following Round Three. The highest ranked statement in Round Three overall was: “Being able to prescribe to patients is more effective and really useful working [in my area]”. Medical support and improved patient care factors appeared the most important. Differences were noted between physiotherapist and pharmacist prescribers regarding the top ten ranked statements, for example team working which pharmacists ranked higher than physiotherapists. Differences may be explained by the variety of practice areas and relative newness of physiotherapy prescribing. Barriers appear to be post or person specific, whereas facilitators appear universal.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Critical care pharmacists improve the quality and efficiency of medication therapy whilst reducing treatment costs where they are available. UK critical care pharmacist deployment was described in 2015, highlighting a deficit in numbers, experience level, and critical care access to pharmacy services over the 7-day week. Since then, national workforce standards have been emphasised, quality indicators published, and service commissioning documents produced, reinforced by care quality assessments. Whether these initiatives have resulted in further development of the UK critical care pharmacy workforce is unknown. This evaluation provides a 2020 status update. Methods The 2015 electronic data entry tool was updated and circulated for completion by UK critical care pharmacists. The tool captured workforce data disposition as it was just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, at critical care unit level. Main findings Data were received for 334 critical care units from 203 organisations (96% of UK critical care units). Overall, 98.2% of UK critical care units had specific clinical pharmacist time dedicated to the unit. The median weekday pharmacist input to each level 3 equivalent bed was 0.066 (0.043–0.088) whole time equivalents, a significant increase from the median position in 2015 (+ 0.021, p < 0.0001). Despite this progress, pharmacist availability remains below national minimum standards (0.1/level 3 equivalent bed). Most units (71.9%) had access to prescribing pharmacists. Geographical variation in pharmacist staffing levels were evident, and weekend services remain extremely limited. Conclusions Availability of clinical pharmacists in UK adult critical care units is improving. However, national standards are not routinely met despite widely publicised quality indicators, commissioning specifications, and assessments. Additional measures are needed to address persistent deficits and realise gains in organisational and patient-level outcomes. These measures must include promotion of cross-professional collaborative working, adjusted funding models, and a nationally recognised training pathway for critical care pharmacists.