A patient perspective of pharmacist prescribing: 'crossing the specialisms-crossing the illnesses'.

BACKGROUND: The drive for non-medical prescribing has progressed quickly since the late 1990s and involves a range of healthcare professionals including pharmacists. As part of a commissioned research project, this qualitative element of a larger case study focused on the views of patients of pharmacist prescribers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore patients' perspectives of pharmacists as prescribers. METHODS: Three pharmacists working as independent prescribers in the clinical areas of (i) hypertension, (ii) cardiovascular/diabetes management, (iii) anticoagulation were recruited to three case studies of pharmacist prescribing in Northern Ireland. One hundred and five patients were invited to participate in focus groups after they had been prescribed for by the pharmacist. Focus groups took place between November 2010 and March 2011 (ethical/governance approvals granted) were audio taped, transcribed verbatim, read independently by two authors and analysed using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients agreed to participate across seven focus groups. Analysis revealed the emergence of one overarching theme: team approach to patient care. A number of subthemes related to the role of the pharmacist, the role of the doctor and patient benefits. There was an overwhelming lack of awareness of pharmacist prescribing. Patients discussed the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to their care and recognized limitations of the current model of prescribing. CONCLUSION: Patients were positive about pharmacist prescribing and felt that a team approach to their care was the ideal model especially when treating those with more complex conditions. Despite positive attitudes, there was a general lack of awareness of this new mode of practice.

"They come with multiple morbidities": a qualitative assessment of pharmacist prescribing.

This paper presents qualitative findings from a larger sequential mixed methods study which sought to provide an in-depth understanding of pharmacist prescribing from the perspective of pharmacist prescribers, medical colleagues and key stakeholders in Northern Ireland. Transcriptions were analyzed using thematic analysis as the interviews progressed and emergent themes were identified and coded (along with supporting quotes) independently and by consensus of the research team. Three major themes emerged in relation to pharmacist prescribing: the effect on patient care; challenges facing pharmacist prescribers and the importance of the interprofessional team (where two or more different professions with varied, yet complementary experience work together with a common purpose). Pharmacist prescribing may have the potential to reduce the medication burden for patients (as reported by pharmacists) as pharmacists tend to provide a more comprehensive medication review than doctors; the additional time for consultations made this possible. Further research is required on how interprofessional team working can be maximized in the context of pharmacist prescribing, particularly in relation to the management of multi-morbidity.

'It's showed me the skills that he has': pharmacists' and mentors' views on pharmacist supplementary prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: Supplementary prescribing has seen pharmacists assume greater responsibility for prescribing in collaboration with doctors. This study explored the context and experiences, in relation to the practice of supplementary prescribing, of pharmacists and physicians (who acted as their training mentors) at least 12 months after pharmacists had qualified as supplementary prescribers. METHODS: The setting was primary and secondary healthcare sectors in Northern Ireland. Pharmacists and mentors who had participated in a pre-training study were invited to take part. All pharmacists (n = 47) were invited to participate in focus groups, while mentors (n = 35) were asked to participate in face-to-face semi-structured interviews. The research took place between May 2005 and September 2007. All discussions and interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using constant comparison. KEY FINDINGS: Nine pharmacist focus groups were convened (number per group ranging from three to six; total n = 40) and 31 semi-structured interviews with mentors were conducted. The six main themes that emerged were optimal practice setting, professional progression for prescribing pharmacists, outcomes for prescribing pharmacists, mentors and patients, relationships, barriers to implementation and the future of pharmacist prescribing. Where practised, pharmacist prescribing had been accepted, worked best for chronic disease management, was perceived to have reduced doctors' workload and improved continuity of care for patients. However, three-quarters of pharmacists qualified to practise as supplementary prescribers were not actively prescribing, largely due to logistical and organisational barriers rather than inter-professional tensions. Independent prescribing was seen as contentious by mentors, particularly because of the diagnostic element. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementary prescribing has been successful where it has been implemented but a number of barriers remain which are preventing the wider acceptance of this practice innovation.

Pharmacist prescribing in Northern Ireland: a quantitative assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Health care in the United Kingdom (UK) has undergone a significant change in terms of the range of professionals who are permitted to prescribe medications. This study aimed to capture information on pharmacist prescribing in Northern Ireland (NI). SETTING: Primary and secondary care in NI. METHOD: A structured self-administered questionnaire was developed and sent to all pharmacists who were identified as qualified prescribers in NI (n = 105), although only 100 respondents provided details of their prescribing status i.e. currently prescribing, previous prescribers and those who had never prescribed. Three versions of the questionnaire were developed to accommodate each category of prescriber. The questionnaire, which sought information on clinical areas/practice settings of prescribers, their working arrangements and barriers to prescribing was distributed by mail on two occasions to maximise response rates. Descriptive analyses were used as appropriate, together with Chi-squared tests or Fisher exact tests to evaluate associations between responses and demographic information, with significance set a priori at P < 0.05. Qualitative data (from the free text response section) were analysed for recurring themes using content analysis. RESULTS: A response rate of 76.0% (n = 76) was achieved. There were more female respondents (73.7%) than males (26.3%). Nearly 50% of respondents were currently prescribing (n = 36; 47.4%), 46.1% (n = 35) had never prescribed and 6.6% (n = 5) had prescribed in the past. There were perceived benefits in terms of patient care and perception of the pharmacist within the health care team. A number of barriers to pharmacist prescribing were reported. Independent prescribing was viewed as the way forward, although pharmacists expressed reluctance to prescribe without a diagnosis or beyond the team setting. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy prescribing has yet to fully embedded in routine practice. This study has shown that the number of qualified prescribers in NI is relatively small and not all have taken up prescribing responsibilities. Well recognised barriers were reported as reasons as to why qualified prescribers were unable to use their prescribing skills. Further research should provide an in-depth understanding of pharmacy prescribing in NI and examine patients' experiences of this form of practice.