Objectives Non‐medical prescribers, including pharmacists, have been found to achieve comparable clinical outcomes with doctors for certain health conditions. Legislation supporting pharmacist prescribing (PP) has been implemented in the United Kingdom (UK), Canada and New Zealand (NZ); however, to date, Australian pharmacists have not been extended prescribing rights. The purpose of this review was to describe the barriers to PP found in the literature from the UK, Canada, NZ and Australia, and examine the implications of these for the development of PP in Australia. Methods We conducted a scoping review, which included peer‐reviewed and grey literature, and consultation with stakeholders. Sources – Scopus, PubMed and CINAHL; Google Scholar, OpenGrey and organisational websites from January 2003 to March 2018 in the UK, Canada, NZ and Australia. Inclusion criteria – articles published in English, related to implementation of PP and articulated barriers to PP. Key findings Of 863 unique records, 120 were reviewed and 64 articles were eligible for inclusion. Three key themes emerged: (1) Socio‐political context, (2) Resourcing issues and (3) Prescriber competence. The most common barriers were inadequate training regarding diagnostic knowledge and skills, inadequate support from authorities and stakeholders, and insufficient funding/reimbursement. Conclusions If implementation of PP is to occur, attention needs to be focused on addressing identified barriers to PP implementation, including fostering a favourable socio‐political context and prescriber competence. As such, a concerted effort is required to develop clear policy pathways, including targeted training courses, raising stakeholder recognition of PP and identifying specific funding, infrastructure and resourcing needs to ensure the smooth integration of pharmacist prescribers within interprofessional clinical teams.

Background: Asthma is principally managed in general practice. Appropriate prescribing and medication use are essential, so general practice pharmacists appear suitable to conduct asthma management consultations. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the asthma management role of a pharmacist in general practice. Methods: Analysis of an activity diary and stakeholder interviews were conducted to identify interventions in asthma management; determine whether asthma control changed following pharmacist input; and determine acceptability of asthma management review by a pharmacist in one general practice in Canberra, Australia. Results: Over 13 months, the pharmacist saw 136 individual patients. The most common activities were asthma control assessment; recommendations to adjust medication or device; counselling on correct device use; asthma action plan development and trigger avoidance. For patients with multiple consultations, the mean Asthma Control Test score improved from the initial to last visit (14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 19.3 ± 4.7, n = 23, p < 0.0001). Eight of the 19 (42%) patients moved from having poor to well-controlled asthma. Case studies and qualitative data indicated probable hospital admission avoidance and stakeholder acceptability of asthma management by a practice pharmacist. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated it is feasible, acceptable and potentially beneficial to have a general practice pharmacist involved in asthma management. Fuller evaluation is warranted.

Decreasing the disparity between cervical cancer screening services provided and those recommended requires addressing the barriers, identified by local experts, which prevent uninsured women from accessing care. These challenges are being addressed through ongoing programs and collaborations.

No abstract