Dr Judith Edwards

Background: Increasing numbers of nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals across the world have prescribing rights for medicines: over 90,000 of the eligible United Kingdom workforce are qualified as non-doctor prescribers. In order to inform future developments, it is important to understand the benefits and impact of prescribing by allied health professionals including physiotherapists and podiatrists.

Paramedic practice is evolving and the number of advanced paramedics in primary care roles in the UK has risen dramatically. A significant milestone for the paramedic profession, recent legislation granting paramedics independent prescribing rights means UK paramedics are the first worldwide to receive this extension in scope of practice. Paramedic prescribing capability is expected to increase autonomy for independent case management and enhance capacity for service development. Local and national success is however likely to depend on skilful implementation and the avoidance of historical barriers. This article aims to raise awareness of potential barriers to early adoption of paramedic independent prescribing in primary care. It identifies common pitfalls prior to training and provides seven practical steps for paramedics considering pursuing non-medical prescribing training.

Abstract Background Increasing numbers of nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals across the world have prescribing rights: over 90,000 of the eligible United Kingdom workforce are qualified as non-doctor prescribers. In order to inform future developments, it is important to understand the benefits and impact of prescribing by allied health professionals including physiotherapists and podiatrists. Aim: to compare outcomes of Physiotherapist and Podiatrist Independent Prescriber (PP-IP) patients with those of Physiotherapist and Podiatrist non-prescribers (PP-NPs). Outcome measures included patient satisfaction, ease of access to services, quality of life and cost implications. Design: a quasi-experimental, post-test control group design Methods: Using mixed methods outcomes were compared between 7 sites where care was provided from a PP-IP (3 podiatrist and 4 physiotherapist IPs) and 7 sites from a PP-NP (3 podiatrist and 4 physiotherapist NPs). Patients were followed up for 2 months (2015-2016). Results: 489 patients were recruited: n=243 IP sites, and n=246 NP sites. Independent prescribing was found to be highly acceptable, and equivalent in terms of quality of life (p>0.05) and patient satisfaction (p≤0.05) compared to care provided by NPs. PP-IP care delivery was found to be more resource intensive than NP-PP, with longer consultation duration for IPs (around 6.5 mins), and a higher proportion of physiotherapy patients discussed with medical colleagues (around 9.5 minutes). Conclusion This study provides new knowledge that PP-IPs provide high levels of care. PP-IP care delivery was found to be more resource intensive. Further research is required to explore cost effectiveness. A more focussed exploration within each profession using targeted outcome measures would enable a more robust comparison, inform future developments around the world and help ensure non-doctor prescribing is recognised as an effective way to alleviate shortfalls in the global workforce.

Objectives: To support workforce deficits and rising demand for medicines, independent prescribing (IP) by nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals is a key component of workforce transformation in UK healthcare. This systematic review of qualitative research studies used a thematic synthesis approach to explore stakeholders’ views on IP in primary care and identify barriers and facilitators influencing implementation. Setting: UK primary/community care. Participants: Inclusion criteria were UK qualitative studies of any design, published in the English language. Six electronic databases were searched between January 2010 and September 2021, supplemented by reference list searching. Papers were screened, selected and quality-appraised using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. Study data were extracted to a bespoke table and two reviewers used NVivo software to code study findings. An inductive thematic synthesis was undertaken to identify descriptive themes and interpret these into higher order analytical themes. The Diffusion of Innovations and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were guiding theoretical anchors. Primary and secondary outcome measures: N/A. Results: Twenty-three articles addressing nurse, pharmacist and physiotherapist IP were included. Synthesis identified barriers and facilitators in four key stages of implementation: (1) ‘Preparation’, (2) ‘Training’, (3) ‘Transition’ and 4) ‘Sustainment’. Enhancement, substitution and role-specific implementation models reflected three main ways that the IP role was used in primary care. Conclusions: In order to address global deficits, there is increasing need to optimise use of IP capability. Although the number of independent prescribers continues to grow, numerous barriers to implementation persist. A more coordinated and targeted approach is key to overcoming barriers identified in the four stages of implementation and would help ensure that IP is recognised as an effective approach to help alleviate workforce shortfalls in the UK, and around the world.