Non-medical prescribing assessment – An evaluation of a nationally agreed multi method approach

Paterson, Ruth; Redman, Susan; Unwin, Rachel; McElhinney, Evelyn; M, MacPhee; Downer, Frances

doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2015.10.008

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result aligns with the literature (Gadbury-Amyot, Bray & Austin, 2014;Haldane, 2014;Paterson et al, 2016), which verifies the validity and efficiency of portfolios by examining prescribing competencies and assessing clinical evidence to meet the required academic level (Paterson et al, 2016). The significance of this finding was investigated by Gadbury-Amyot and colleagues, who found a positive relationship between the performance of portfolios and students' GPA, and between performance of portfolios and the National Board Dental Hygiene Examination (NBDHE) (Gadbury-Amyot, Bray & Austin, 2014).…”

Section: Assessmentsupporting

confidence: 93%

Pharmacist prescribing training models in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada: Snapshot survey

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study sought to identify the differences between training models for pharmacist prescribing across three countries according to the funding, model of prescribing the pharmacist will practice after training, training course framework, method of delivery, assessment, continuing professional development, and barriers and facilitators to enrolment. Methods: An online quantitative/qualitative snapshot survey was sent to academics of pharmacist prescribing courses and Deans of different pharmacy schools in the UK (n=49), Australia (n=12), and Canada (n=10). A narrative analysis was undertaken. Results: Seventeen pharmacy schools responded (24% response rate). The UK provides postgraduate training courses funded by the government. Canada incorporates prescribing competencies into entry-t- practice courses. Australia does not provide courses yet. Conclusion: Pharmacist prescribing is still under-utilised in many countries. Standardisation would reduce variation and improve uptake in countries implementing pharmacist prescribing roles. However, there is currently no international unified system or curriculum for pharmacists' prescribing courses.

show abstract

Section: Assessmentsupporting

confidence: 93%

Pharmacist prescribing training models in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada: Snapshot survey

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the UK, a range of non-medical health professionals can prescribe medicines for patient [32]. The growth in numbers of non-medical prescribers re ects the need to mitigate increasing demands on the NHS [33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-stakeholder approach to the co-production of the research agenda for medicines optimisation

Fellenor

Britten

Courtenay

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Up to 50% of medicines are not used as intended, resulting in poor health and economic outcomes. Medicines optimisation is ‘a person-centred approach to safe and effective medicines use, to ensure people obtain the best possible outcomes from their medicines’. The purpose of this exercise was to co-produce a prioritised research agenda for medicines optimisation using a multi-stakeholder (patient, researcher, public and health professionals) approach. Methods A three-stage, multiple method process was used including: generation of preliminary research questions (Stage 1) using a modified Nominal Group Technique; electronic consultation and ranking with a wider multi-stakeholder group (Stage 2); a face-to-face, one-day consensus meeting involving representatives from all stakeholder groups (Stage 3). Results In total, 92 research questions were identified during Stages 1 and 2 and ranked in order of priority during stage 3. Questions were categorised into four areas: ‘Patient Concerns’ [e.g. is there a shared decision (with patients) about using each medicine?], ‘Polypharmacy’ [e.g. how to design health services to cope with the challenge of multiple medicines use?], ‘Non-Medical Prescribing’ [e.g. how can the contribution of non-medical prescribers be optimised in primary care?], and ‘Deprescribing’ [e.g. what support is needed by prescribers to deprescribe?]. A significant number of the 92 questions were generated by Patient and Public Involvement representatives, which demonstrates the importance of including this stakeholder group when identifying research priorities. Conclusions A wide range of research questions was generated reflecting concerns which affect patients, practitioners, the health service, as well the ethical and philosophical aspects of the prescribing and deprescribing of medicines. These questions should be used to set future research agendas and funding commissions.

show abstract

“…In the UK, a range of non-medical health professionals can prescribe medicines for patient [29]. The growth in numbers of non-medical prescribers reflects the need to mitigate increasing demands on the NHS [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-stakeholder approach to the co-production of the research agenda for medicines optimisation

Fellenor

Britten

Courtenay

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Over one billion prescription items are dispensed in the United Kingdom annually. Up to 50% of medicines are not used as intended, resulting in sub-optimal health outcomes and harm. Medicines optimisation is ‘a person-centred approach to safe and effective medicines use, to ensure people obtain the best possible outcomes from their medicines’. The purpose of this study was to co-produce a prioritised research agenda for medicines optimisation using a multi-stakeholder (patient, public and health professionals) approach. Methods A three-stage, multiple method process was used including: generation of preliminary research questions (Stage 1) using a modified Nominal Group Technique; electronic consultation and ranking with a wider multi-stakeholder group (Stage 2); a face-to-face, one-day consensus meeting involving representatives from all stakeholder groups (Stage 3). Results In total, 92 research questions were identified during Stages 1 and 2 and ranked in order of priority during stage 3. Questions were categorised into four areas: ‘Patient Concerns’ [e.g. is there a shared decision (with patients) about using each medicine?], ‘Polypharmacy’ [e.g. how to design health services to cope with the challenge of multiple medicines use?], ‘Non-Medical Prescribing’ [e.g. how can the contribution of non-medical prescribers be optimised in primary care?], and ‘Deprescribing’ [e.g. what support is needed by prescribers to deprescribe?]. A significant number of the 92 questions were generated by Patient and Public Involvement representatives, which demonstrates the importance of including this stakeholder group when identifying research priorities. Conclusions A wide range of research questions was generated reflecting concerns which affect patients, practitioners, the health service, as well the ethical and philosophical aspects of the prescribing and deprescribing of medicines. These questions should be used to set future research agendas and funding commissions.

show abstract

Non-medical prescribing assessment – An evaluation of a nationally agreed multi method approach

Cited by 12 publications

References 38 publications

Pharmacist prescribing training models in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada: Snapshot survey

Pharmacist prescribing training models in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada: Snapshot survey

A multi-stakeholder approach to the co-production of the research agenda for medicines optimisation

A multi-stakeholder approach to the co-production of the research agenda for medicines optimisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About