Collaborative prescribing: A qualitative exploration of a role for pharmacists in mental health

BackgroundCollaborative prescribing has been proposed as an extension of practice for advanced pharmacist practitioners. A lack of research investigating how pharmacists might be most effective as prescribers in mental health was identified.ObjectiveTo explore health professionals’ and consumers’ attitudes and beliefs that relate to the role of specialist mental health pharmacists working as collaborative prescribers within their advanced scope of practice in secondary care.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with key informants in the New Zealand mental health sector. Participants were selected via a purposive sampling method, including health professionals (n = 9) and consumers (n = 3). NVivo software was used to analyze data, using a thematic analysis approach to develop a series of key themes from the interviews. Common themes were extracted, which were used to gather results and draw conclusions.ResultsThe key findings include a widespread acknowledgment of the role of specialist pharmacists as collaborative prescribers in mental health and as integral members of the multidisciplinary team; however, consumers were unaware of pharmacists’ role in secondary care. The role was seen to extend current practice particularly in medication management after assessment and diagnosis by a medical practitioner. Concerns regarding demonstrating competence, practitioner role/boundary confusion, insufficient training and workforce development, hesitancy by pharmacists to extend role, consumer awareness, and public perception of the traditional pharmacist role were identified. Solutions discussed included education by the profession; relationship building, training, and robust competency assessments; and a structured framework for implementing a collaborative prescribing model.ConclusionsThis study suggests there was recognition and acceptance of the role that specialist pharmacist practitioners could play in contributing to the care of mental health consumers as collaborative prescribers; their medication expertise being regarded highly. Further research is necessary to investigate how current resource constraints will allow for collaborative prescribing to be implemented within the context of mental health practice.     

Views of the Scottish general public on non-medical prescribing

Background Under UK legislation, suitably qualified non-medical professionals can practise as prescribers. Few studies have explored the views of the general public towards non-medical prescribing. Objective The aim was to explore the views of the Scottish general public on non-medical prescribing. Setting General community in Scotland. Method A pre-piloted survey was mailed to a random sample of 5,000 members of the general public in Scotland. In addition to the items on awareness of and attitudes towards non-medical prescribing, respondents were asked to ‘give any other comments, issues or concerns you have in relation to health professionals other than doctors prescribing.’ Responses were subjected to content analysis. Main outcome measures Key themes identified from content analysis. Results The overall questionnaire response rate was 37.1 % (n = 1,855) of which 27.2 % (n = 505) provided comments. Most were directly related to pharmacist prescribing (n = 312) while others referred to non-medical prescribers generically (n = 172) or other healthcare professionals (n = 79). Nine themes were identified: perception of knowledge and training; support for a limited range of non-medical prescribing; access to medical records; motivation and convenience; confidence, faith and trust; privacy and confidentiality; risks, controls and continuity of care; supervision and conflict of interest; communication and cooperation. Conclusions The findings identify support for non-medical prescribing but indicate the need for non-medical prescribers to engage more with the general public. The comments also provide insight into the challenges for non-medical prescribers, as they strive to fulfil their extended healthcare roles.     

Can a redesign of emergency pharmacist roles improve medication management? A prospective study in three Australian hospitals

BackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) face increasing service demands and the imposition of treatment targets which has led to continual process redesign and changes in staff skill mix and functions.ObjectiveTo identify extended ED pharmacist roles that could improve medication management and to implement and evaluate one such role change.MethodsA focus group of clinicians sought to redesign processes around ED medication management. Preparation of medication charts for patients admitted from ED was selected. Baseline data were obtained to define elements of existing medication charting processes. Suitably trained ED pharmacists' trialled the effectiveness of making therapeutic suggestions on a medication chart ‘sticker’ or by direct ‘consultation’ with medical staff. At the conclusion of the study focus groups at each site evaluated clinical staff perceptions of the change.ResultsFocus group participants thought that ED pharmacists could undertake extended roles in analgesia, nausea control, antibiotic cover, addiction management and preparation of medication charts for admitted patients. In the pre-intervention audit (n = 140), 74% required at least one intervention by the ward pharmacists to address medication discrepancies. Ward pharmacists detected 292 medication discrepancies (median 1, IQR 0–3). In the ‘sticker’ intervention the ED pharmacist made 84 therapeutic suggestions of which 66 (78.6%) were accepted by medical staff. In the ‘consultation’ intervention 230 therapeutic suggestions were made of which 219 (95.2%) were accepted. The qualitative evaluation found that pharmacist-prepared medication charts within the processes established were deemed safe, timely, accurate, complete and legible.ConclusionSupport exists for ED pharmacists to expand their medication-related roles. ED pharmacists can safely prepare medication charts in a timely fashion and their therapeutic suggestions within a ‘consultative’ framework are more beneficial than written advice. However, issues relating to resourcing, hours of service, service focus, statutory restrictions and training support for extended roles require resolution.     

The rise of non-medical prescribing and medical dominance

This article contributes to the continuing debate on the professional dominance of medicine given the rising number of professions allied to medicine that now have the legal authority to prescribe and could potentially threaten this dominance. The key questions addressed are whether non-medical prescribers represent a threat to the dominance of medicine and if they do not, what has mediated doctors' response to these newer prescribers such that they are able to retain dominance? Drawing on Abbott's work on jurisdictional claims, this paper explores how the rise of non-medical prescribing has led to competing jurisdictional claims over prescribing between doctors and non-medical prescribers. This paper particularly focuses on pharmacist prescribing and how competing jurisdictional claims could be settled. It discusses why the profession of medicine is still dominant and the importance of professional ideologies to influencing the outcome of competing jurisdictional claims. The professional ideology of medicine has shifted from valuing prescribing to valuing the indeterminacy involved in complex clinical decision making, illustrating medicine's ability to adapt, retain dominance and maintain cultural authority over clinical knowledge. In contrast, pharmacist prescribers' professional ideology involves having specialist medicines expertise and being safe prescribers. Pharmacists draw upon this ideology to argue their unique competence as a prescriber: given their pharmacological knowledge and attention to detail which facilitates their role as clinical checker or ‘safety net’ on prescribing. However, medicine's cultural authority in clinical decision-making enables, when there are competing jurisdictional claims over prescribing, for doctors to retain intellectual jurisdiction: control over the cognitive knowledge base involved in prescribing and clinical decision making. Could this be eroded to a weaker form of control involving advisory jurisdiction? Should political developments further favour the widespread acceptance of prescribing as a core part of the pharmacist's role, an erosion to advisory jurisdiction may yet be possible.     

Evaluating the impact of a pharmacist-led prescribing feedback intervention on prescribing errors in a hospital setting

BackgroundPrescribing errors are prevalent in hospital settings with provision of feedback recommended to support prescribing of doctors. Feedback on prescribing has been described as feasible and valued but limited by doctors, with pharmacists described as credible facilitators of prescribing feedback. Evidence supporting prescribing feedback has been limited to date. A formalised programme of pharmacist-led prescribing error feedback was designed and implemented to support prescribers.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of a prescribing feedback intervention on prescribing error rates and frequency of prescribing error severity and type.MethodProspective prescribing audits were undertaken across sixteen hospital wards in a UK teaching hospital over a five day period with 36 prescribers in the intervention group and 41 in the control group. The intervention group received pharmacist-led, individualised constructive feedback on their prescribing, whilst the control group continued with existing practice. Prescribing was re-audited after three months. Prescribing errors were classified by type and severity and data were analysed using relevant statistical tests.ResultsA total of 5191 prescribed medications were audited at baseline and 5122 post-intervention. There was a mean prescribing error rate of 25.0% (SD 16.8, 95% CI 19.3 to 30.7) at baseline and 6.7% (SD 9.0, 95% CI 3.7 to 9.8) post-intervention for the intervention group, and 19.7% (SD 14.5, 95% CI 15.2 to 24.3) at baseline and 25.1% (SD 17.0, 95% CI 19.8 to 30.6) post-intervention for the control group with a significant overall change in prescribing error rates between groups of 23.7% (SD 3.5, 95% CI, ?30.6 to ?16.8), t(75) = ?6.9, p < 0.05. The frequency of each error type and severity rating was reduced in the intervention group, whilst the error frequency of some error types and severity increased in the control group.ConclusionPharmacist-led prescribing feedback has the potential to reduce prescribing errors and improve prescribing outcomes and patient safety.     

A multifaceted intervention to reduce guideline non-adherence among prescribing physicians in Dutch hospitals

Background Despite the potential of clinical practice guidelines to improve patient outcomes, adherence to guidelines by prescribers is inconsistent. Objective The aim of the study was to determine whether an approach of introducing an educational programme for prescribers in the hospital combined with audit and feedback by the hospital pharmacist reduces non-adherence of prescribing physicians to key pharmacotherapeutic guidelines. Setting This prospective intervention study with a before–after design evaluated patients at surgical, urological and orthopaedic wards. Method An educational program covering pain management, antithrombotics, fluid and electrolyte management, prescribing in case of renal insufficiency, application of radiographic contrast agents and surgical antibiotic prophylaxis was presented to prescribers on the participating wards. Hospital pharmacists performed medication safety consultations, combining medication review of patients who are at risk for drug related problems with visits to ward physicians. Main outcome measure The outcome measure was the proportion of the admissions of patients in which the physician did not adhere to one or more of the included guidelines. Difference was expressed in odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. Results 1435 Admissions of 1378 patients during the usual care period and 1195 admissions of 1090 patients during the intervention period were included. Non-adherence was observed significantly less often during the intervention period [21.8% (193/886)] as compared to the usual care period [30.5% (332/1089)]. The adjusted OR was 0.61 (95% CI 0.49–0.76). Conclusion This study shows that education and support of the prescribing physician can reduce guideline non-adherence at surgical wards.     

Pharmacist independent prescribing in secondary care: opportunities and challenges

In recent years a number of countries have extended prescribing rights to pharmacists in a variety of formats. The latter includes independent prescribing, which is a developing area of practice for pharmacists in secondary care. Potential opportunities presented by wide scale implementation of pharmacist prescribing in secondary care include improved prescribing safety, more efficient pharmacist medication reviews, increased scope of practice with greater pharmacist integration into acute patient care pathways and enhanced professional or job satisfaction. However, notable challenges remain and these need to be acknowledged and addressed if a pharmacist prescribing is to develop sufficiently within developing healthcare systems. These barriers can be broadly categorised as lack of support (financial and time resources), medical staff acceptance and the pharmacy profession itself (adoption, implementation strategy, research resources, second pharmacist clinical check). Larger multicentre studies that investigate the contribution of hospital-based pharmacist prescribers to medicines optimisation and patient-related outcomes are still needed. Furthermore, a strategic approach from the pharmacy profession and leadership is required to ensure that pharmacist prescribers are fully integrated into future healthcare service and workforce strategies.     

Non-medical prescribing

In the UK, the Medicines Act 1968 limited the legal right to prescribe medicines to doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons. Nearly 40 years later, non-medical prescribing, the extension of prescribing responsibilities to nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals, is a key development in the NHS. Within England, from May 2006, certain nurse and pharmacist prescribers can prescribe any licensed medicine (except most controlled drugs) within their sphere of competence. Here we discuss the historical context, the different types and the clinical implications of non-medical prescribing.     

Pharmacist role to enhance the prescribing of hospital discharge medications for patients after heart attack

ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore the cardiologist adherence with ACC/AHA guidelines on discharge medications for patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), assess the predictors of cardiologist non-adherence and measure the impact of pharmacist intervention on improving guideline adherence.MethodsThe study included two consecutive phases: observation and intervention. It was carried out at Al-Najaf Center for Cardiac Surgery and Catheterization, Iraq, from August through December 2018. In the observation phase, medical records were reviewed retrospectively in order to assess the adherence to guideline. The intervention phase was performed prospectively by the clinical pharmacist, who conducted interventions including auditing, feedback and discussion with every prescriber. The reference of the recommendations was the guideline of American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline (AHA/ACC). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged with optimal treatment. Independent T-test was used to measure the difference in the means of age between the two patient groups. For categorical variables (gender, diagnosis, and comorbidities), chi-square test was used. Binary logistic regression was used to identify patient and disease characteristics associated with receiving optimal discharge regimen.ResultsThe observation phase included 100 patients with ACS, while the intervention phase included 105 patients. A total of 50 interventions were performed by pharmacist, of which adding necessary medication was the most frequent (88%), followed by dose optimization (10%), and removing medication duplication (2%). Seventy-four percent of the provided recommendations were accepted by the cardiologists. Pharmacist intervention caused significant (P-value < 0.05) improvement (increasing) in the prescribing of β-blockers, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, statins, and the proportion of patients who received all optimal five therapies (from 35% in observation phase to 80% after intervention).ConclusionThis study showed that pharmacist intervention had a considerable positive impact on the cardiologist prescribing pattern of the essential discharge medications for patients with ACS which could improve patient clinical outcomes.     

Exploring the impact of feedback on prescribing error rates: a pilot study

Background Prescribing errors are prevalent in hospital settings with feedback identified as one potential error reduction strategy. Hospital pharmacists work alongside prescribers at ward level and are credible facilitators of prescribing error feedback. A formalised programme of pharmacist-led prescribing error feedback was designed and implemented Objective To determine the impact of the feedback intervention on prescribing error rates. Method Prospective prescribing audits were undertaken at baseline for control (n = 11) and intervention group (n = 10) prescribers. The intervention group received pharmacist-led, individualised constructive feedback on their prescribing, whilst the control group continued with existing practice. Prescribing was re-audited following 3-months of the intervention. Data were analysed using chi-squared and independent t-tests. Results Error frequency (123/641 intervention and 121/649 control) was comparable between groups at baseline (p = 0.819) with significant differences (90/1677 intervention and 236/984 control) post intervention (p = <0.005). Prescribing error rates were lower in the intervention group (mean change of ?11.5%) and higher in the control group (mean change of +5.9%) following the intervention, with a mean significant difference of 17.4% (SD 4.7, 95% CI, ?27.3 to ?7.6), t = ?3.694, p < 0.05, between groups. Conclusion Pharmacist-led prescribing error feedback positively influences prescribing. This intervention shows promise for wider application in hospital settings to optimise patient safety.     

Impact of pharmacist outreach on glucagon prescribing

BackgroundHypoglycemia is a major limiting factor in the glycemic management of diabetes. As a method of treating hypoglycemia, the American Diabetes Association recommends glucagon to be prescribed for all individuals at increased risk of clinically impactful hypoglycemia. Glucagon Emergency Kits have been shown to reduce emergency department visits and overall health care costs. Despite these known benefits, glucagon continues to be underprescribed. Previous pharmacist-led interventions embedded in a single clinic have been shown to positively affect the rate of glucagon prescribing in patients with diabetes.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the rate of glucagon prescribing between quality improvement remote pharmacist outreach to multiple primary care and endocrinology specialty clinics and the control group in 1 month following a pharmacist-led provider outreach.MethodsThis was a single-center, 2-arm study with a simple randomization design.ResultsOn pharmacist outreach, 61 of 109 patients (56.0%) in the outreach group were prescribed a glucagon product within 1 month of their primary care provider (PCP) or endocrinology appointment compared with 1 of 113 (0.9%) of patients in the control group (P < 0.001). Glucagon prescribing occurred in 25 of 35 Black patients (71.4%) compared with 36 of 73 white patients (49.3%) in the outreach group. Glucagon prescribing was associated with race (P = 0.03; chi-square test).ConclusionsThe pharmacist-led provider outreach before a PCP or endocrinology appointment has a positive and statistically significant impact on glucagon prescribing rates. The pharmacist outreach had a higher impact on Black patients than white patients, possibly because of a lower rate of glucagon prescribing in Black patients before the outreach.     

A modified-Delphi study of a framework to support the potential implementation of pharmacist prescribing

BackgroundThere is an extensive evidence base of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacist prescribing around the globe. There is therefore potential to develop a framework to support the implementation in Qatar to achieve the National Vision 2030 of establishing a comprehensive world-class healthcare system by better utilisation of its healthcare workforce.AimTo determine the levels of agreement amongst key stakeholders regarding a framework for the potential development and implementation of pharmacist prescribing in Qatar.MethodA quantitative, consensus-based modified Delphi study involving stakeholders in Qatar with key strategic positions of health policy influence (directors of medicine/nursing/pharmacy, lead administrators, health-related academics, patient safety leads, professional regulators) was conducted. Delphi statements were developed from extensive literature reviews, semi-structured interviews, pharmacist prescribing frameworks implemented in other countries, and based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The scope of the statements included definitions and scope of prescribing, education and training, and governance, were validated with eight specialists from UK and Qatar, and presented as an online Delphi. Consensus was set at 70% or higher agreement and less than 15% disagreement for each statement.ResultsThirty-three experts agreed to participate in the Delphi, with a response rate of 94% for Round 1 and 91% for Round 2, at which point the Delphi stopped. Consensus was achieved for 38 out of 47 statements indicating that a collaborative prescribing model was preferred, and that experience and additional training were required along with robust governance. Consensus was not reached in relation to independent prescribing, prescribing controlled drugs, and ordering certain diagnostic/monitoring investigations (e.g. ECG, X-ray).ConclusionHigh levels of agreement were attained for statements, which can constitute a framework for the development and implementation of pharmacist prescribing in Qatar. Further work is required to translate this framework into healthcare policy and practice.