Hospital pharmacists' views on collaborative pharmacist prescribing

In 2008, Weeks et al. published the results of a postal survey, which explored the views of the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia’s (SHPA) members on collaborative prescribing, and the extent of de facto prescribing in their institution. Since then, significant work has been undertaken on non-medical prescribing, such as pilots of pharmacist prescribing across Australia and a National Health Workforce report on developing a nationally consistent approach to prescribing by nonmedical health professionals. The first stage of the Health Workforce Australia Health Practitioner Prescribing Pathway project is complete and the recommendations for implementation have been approved by the Standing Council in November 2013. New Zealand pharmacists obtained prescribing rights in 2013, and the first cohort of 14 prescribers have completed the postgraduate pharmacist prescribing course (jointly run by the Otago and Auckland Universities).

Pharmacist prescribing of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in a surgical pre-admission clinic

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the term used to describe the disease process which presents as either deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. It is a major cause of death and disability worldwide and places a large financial burden on healthcare systems. Multiple risk factors have been identified for the development of VTE, including hospitalisation for acute medical illness and surgery. Documentation of VTE risk assessment is a critical part of any patient admission, driven by evidence that a risk assessment is a trigger for VTE prophylaxis to be considered. In the United Kingdom, healthcare services have set targets for VTE risk assessment documentation and financial incentives are linked to targets being met...

A pilot study to assess the appropriateness of prescribing from a collaborative pharmacist prescribing study in a surgical pre admission clinic

Background Current evidence to support non-medical prescribing is predominantly qualitative, with little evaluation of appropriateness. This study aims to evaluate the appropriateness of prescribing, and significance of omissions, from a doctor pharmacist collaborative prescribing model in an elective surgery pre admission clinic (PAC). Method A modified version of the Medication Appropriate Index (MAI) was developed, piloted and subsequently used by an expert panel, comprised of a surgeon, anaesthetist, clinical pharmacologist, pharmacist, resident medical officer (RMO) and clinical nurse. The tool was used to rate the appropriateness of prescribing of medications, and the significance of omissions in a 5% sample (N=19) of the total cohort from a randomised, controlled two arm trial of doctor-pharmacist collaborative prescribing. Results When reviewer assessments were combined, 32 out of 294 (10.9%) medications assessed for appropriateness in the control arm were classed as inappropriate, compared to 13 of 266 (4.9%) in the intervention arm. Out of 89 regular medications in the control arm, 25 (28%) were omitted from the medication charts, compared to 1 out of 55 (2%) in the intervention arm (p<0.001, fishers exact) On average, 52% of omissions in the control arm were judged to have potential for patient harm or ward inconvenience. Conclusion For the appropriateness of prescribing, overall results were similar between arms, as judged by individual panel members. Medication charts in the control arm contained significantly more omissions than in the intervention arm, a number of which were rated by the panel members as having the potential for patient harm or ward inconvenience.

Patient satisfaction from two studies of collaborative doctor : pharmacist prescribing in Australia

Background Pharmacist prescribing has been introduced in several countries and is a possible future role for pharmacy in Australia. Objective To assess whether patient satisfaction with the pharmacist as a prescriber, and patient experiences in two settings of collaborative doctor-pharmacist prescribing may be barriers to implementation of pharmacist prescribing. Design Surveys containing closed questions, and Likert scale responses, were completed in both settings to investigate patient satisfaction after each consultation. A further survey investigating attitudes towards pharmacist prescribing, after multiple consultations, was completed in the sexual health clinic. Setting and Participants A surgical pre-admission clinic (PAC) in a tertiary hospital and an outpatient sexual health clinic at a university hospital. Two hundred patients scheduled for elective surgery, and 17 patients diagnosed with HIV infection, respectively, recruited to the pharmacist prescribing arm of two collaborative doctor-pharmacist prescribing studies. Results Consultation satisfaction response rates in PAC and the sexual health clinic were 182/200 (91%) and 29/34 (85%), respectively. In the sexual health clinic, the attitudes towards pharmacist prescribing survey response rate were 14/17 (82%). Consultation satisfaction was high in both studies, most patients (98% and 97%, respectively) agreed they were satisfied with the consultation. In the sexual health clinic, all patients (14/14) agreed that they trusted the pharmacist’s ability to prescribe, care was as good as usual care, and they would recommend seeing a pharmacist prescriber to friends. Discussion and Conclusion Most of the patients had a high satisfaction with pharmacist prescriber consultations, and a positive outlook on the collaborative model of care in the sexual health clinic.

"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.

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.

Pharmacy legislation:public protector or professional hindrance?

Pharmacy originates from a background of medication compounding and supply. More recently, this role has developed away from an absolute focus on the supply of pharmaceuticals with, for example, the advent of pharmacist prescribing. Nevertheless, for a majority of the profession, medication supply remains a core activity. Regulation of the pharmacy profession is now the responsibility of the General Pharmaceutical Council, although up until 27 September 2010, this role fell to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). Before this change, in one of the most high-profile legal cases involving a pharmacist in a professional capacity, R. v Lee, a pharmacist was prosecuted firstly for gross negligence manslaughter, later revised to offences under the Medicines Act 1968, for a single error relating to medication supply, and was given a suspended custodial sentence. Offences against sections 64 or 85 of the Medicines Act are absolute offences and there is no due diligence defence. Prosecution of a pharmacist for the supply of incorrect medication may seem a measured course of action to protect the public from the wrongful supply of potent pharmacotherapeutic agents; however, further analysis of Lee indicates that this approach may be counterproductive. An appeal of the original conviction in the Lee case has resulted in a clarification of the interpretation of section 85(5); however currently, prosecutions under section 64 are still a possibility. Owing to the seriousness of a criminal conviction under section 64, this continuation will potentially stifle the profession's ability to learn from dispensing errors. © The Author [2013]. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

Perioperative medication management: expanding the role of the preadmission clinic pharmacist in a single centre, randomised controlled trial of collaborative prescribing

Objectives Current evidence to support non-medical prescribing is predominantly qualitative, with little evaluation of accuracy, safety and appropriateness. Our aim was to evaluate a new model of service for the Australia healthcare system, of inpatient medication prescribing by a pharmacist in an elective surgery preadmission clinic (PAC) against usual care, using an endorsed performance framework. Design Single centre, randomised controlled, two-arm trial. Setting Elective surgery PAC in a Brisbane-based tertiary hospital. Participants 400 adults scheduled for elective surgery were randomised to intervention or control. Intervention A pharmacist generated the inpatient medication chart to reflect the patient's regular medication, made a plan for medication perioperatively and prescribed venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. In the control arm, the medication chart was generated by the Resident Medical Officers. Outcome measures Primary outcome was frequency of omissions and prescribing errors when compared against the medication history. The clinical significance of omissions was also analysed. Secondary outcome was appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis prescribing. Results There were significantly less unintended omissions of medications: 11 of 887 (1.2%) intervention orders compared with 383 of 1217 (31.5%) control (p<0.001). There were significantly less prescribing errors involving selection of drug, dose or frequency: 2 in 857 (0.2%) intervention orders compared with 51 in 807 (6.3%) control (p<0.001). Orders with at least one component of the prescription missing, incorrect or unclear occurred in 208 of 904 (23%) intervention orders and 445 of 1034 (43%) controls (p<0.001). VTE prophylaxis on admission to the ward was appropriate in 93% of intervention patients and 90% controls (p=0.29). Conclusions Medication charts in the intervention arm contained fewer clinically significant omissions, and prescribing errors, when compared with controls. There was no difference in appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis on admission between the two groups.