Dataset Information

A Delphi study to explore and gain consensus regarding the most important barriers and facilitators affecting physiotherapist and pharmacist non-medical prescribing.

ABSTRACT: Non-medical prescribing was introduced into the United Kingdom to improve patient care, but early research indicated a third of Allied Health Professionals may not use their prescribing qualification. A previous literature review, highlighting factors influencing prescribing, identified only papers with nursing and pharmacy participants. This investigation explored consensus on factors affecting physiotherapist and pharmacist non-medical prescribers. A three round Delphi study was conducted with pharmacist and physiotherapist prescribers. Round One comprised information gathering on facilitators and barriers to prescribing participants had experienced, and underwent content analysis. This was followed by two sequential consensus seeking rounds with participants asked to rate the importance of statements to themselves. Consensus criteria were determined a priori, including median, interquartile range, percentage agreement and Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W). Statements reaching consensus were ranked for importance in Round Three and analysed to produce top ten ranks for all participants and for each professional group. Participants, recruited October 2018, comprised 24 pharmacists and 18 physiotherapists. In Round One, content analysis of 172 statements regarding prescribing influences revealed 24 themes. 127 statements were included in Round Two for importance rating (barriers = 68, facilitators = 59). After Round Two, 29 statements reached consensus (barriers = 1, facilitators = 28), with no further statements reaching consensus following Round Three. The highest ranked statement in Round Three overall was: "Being able to prescribe to patients is more effective and really useful working [in my area]". Medical support and improved patient care factors appeared the most important. Differences were noted between physiotherapist and pharmacist prescribers regarding the top ten ranked statements, for example team working which pharmacists ranked higher than physiotherapists. Differences may be explained by the variety of practice areas and relative newness of physiotherapy prescribing. Barriers appear to be post or person specific, whereas facilitators appear universal.

SUBMITTER: Graham-Clarke E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7853445 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Delphi study to explore and gain consensus regarding the most important barriers and facilitators affecting physiotherapist and pharmacist non-medical prescribing.

Graham-Clarke Emma E Rushton Alison A Marriott John J

PloS one 20210202 2

Non-medical prescribing was introduced into the United Kingdom to improve patient care, but early research indicated a third of Allied Health Professionals may not use their prescribing qualification. A previous literature review, highlighting factors influencing prescribing, identified only papers with nursing and pharmacy participants. This investigation explored consensus on factors affecting physiotherapist and pharmacist non-medical prescribers. A three round Delphi study was conducted with ...[more]

PMID: 33529197

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommunity pharmacists are positioned to improve access to medications through their ever-expanding role as prescribers, with this role becoming more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectivesOur research aimed to determine the extent of self-reported pharmacist prescribing pre-COVID-19 and during the COVID-19 pandemic, to identify barriers and facilitators to pharmacist prescribing, and to explore the relationship between these factors and self-reported prescribing activity.MethodsA questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDFv2) assessing self-reported prescribing was electronically distributed to all direct patient care pharmacists in NS (N = 1338) in July 2020. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to examine temporal differences in self-reported prescribing activity. TDFv2 responses were descriptively reported as positive (agree/strongly agree), neutral (uncertain), and negative (strongly disagree/disagree) based on the 5-point Likert scale assessing barriers and facilitators to prescribing from March 2020 onward (i.e., 'during' COVID-19). Simple logistic regression was used to measure the relationship between TDFv2 domain responses and self-reported prescribing activity.ResultsA total of 190 pharmacists (14.2%) completed the survey. Over 98% of respondents reported prescribing at least once per month in any of the approved prescribing categories, with renewals being the most common activity reported. Since the pandemic, activity in several categories of prescribing significantly increased, including diagnosis supported by protocol (29.0% vs. 58.9%, p < 0.01), minor and common ailments (25.3% vs 34.7%, p = 0.03), preventative medicine (22.1% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.01). Amongst the TDFv2 domains, Beliefs about Consequences domain had the largest influence on prescribing activity (OR = 3.13, 95% CI 1.41-6.97, p < 0.01), with Social Influences (OR = 2.85, 95% CI 1.42-5.70, p < 0.01) being the next most influential.ConclusionSelf-reported prescribing by direct patient care community pharmacists in Nova Scotia increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for government-funded services. Key barriers to address, and facilitators to support pharmacist prescribing were identified and can be used to inform future interventions.

Project description:BackgroundResidents in care homes are often very frail, have complex medicine regimens and are at high risk of adverse drug events. It has been recommended that one healthcare professional should assume responsibility for their medicines management. We propose that this could be a pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP). This feasibility study aimed to test and refine the service specification and proposed study processes to inform the design and outcome measures of a definitive randomised controlled trial to examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of PIPs working in care homes compared to usual care. Specific objectives included testing processes for participant identification, recruitment and consent and assessing retention rates; determining suitability of outcome measures and data collection processes from care homes and GP practices to inform selection of a primary outcome measure; assessing service and research acceptability; and testing and refining the service specification.MethodsMixed methods (routine data, questionnaires and focus groups/interviews) were used in this non-randomised open feasibility study of a 3-month PIP intervention in care homes for older people. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months. One PIP, trained in service delivery, one GP practice and up to three care homes were recruited at each of four UK locations. For ten eligible residents (≥ 65 years, on at least one regular medication) in each home, the PIP undertook management of medicines, repeat prescription authorisation, referral to other healthcare professionals and staff training. Outcomes (falls, medications, resident's quality of life and activities of daily living, mental state and adverse events) were described at baseline and follow-up and assessed for inclusion in the main study. Participants' views post-intervention were captured in audio-recorded focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were thematically analysed.ResultsAcross the four locations, 44 GP practices and 16 PIPs expressed interest in taking part; all care homes invited agreed to take part. Two thirds of residents approached consented to participate (53/86). Forty residents were recruited (mean age 84 years; 61% (24) were female), and 38 participants remained at 3 months (two died). All GP practices, PIPs and care homes were retained. The number of falls per participating resident was selected as the primary outcome, following assessment of the different outcome measures against predetermined criteria. The chosen secondary outcomes/outcome measures include total falls, drug burden index (DBI), hospitalisations, mortality, activities of daily living (Barthel (proxy)) and quality of life (ED-5Q-5 L (face-to-face and proxy)) and selected items from the STOPP/START guidance that could be assessed without need for clinical judgement. No adverse drug events were reported. The PIP service was generally well received by the majority of stakeholders (care home staff, GPS, residents, relatives and other health care professionals). PIPs reported feeling more confident implementing change following the training but reported challenges accommodating the new service within their existing workload.ConclusionImplementing a PIP service in care homes is feasible and acceptable to care home residents, staff and clinicians. Findings have informed refinements to the service specification, PIP training, recruitment to the future RCT and the choice of outcomes and outcome measures. The full RCT with internal pilot started in February 2016 and results are expected to be available in mid late 2020.

Project description:BackgroundIn many jurisdictions, the pharmacist's role continues to evolve from drug distribution-based service delivery to expanded scopes of practice, including independent prescribing of medications.ObjectivesTo assess health authority-based pharmacists' attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about independent prescribing, to determine how independent prescribing may affect their behaviour, and to identify perceived barriers and enablers to incorporating it into their practice.MethodsAn anonymous, cross-sectional online survey of 677 health authority-based pharmacists employed by Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services in British Columbia collected information in the following domains: demographic characteristics; attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding pharmacist prescribing; anticipated effect of pharmacist prescribing on behaviour; likelihood of applying for this authority, if granted; and barriers and enablers to applying for prescribing authority and incorporating prescribing into their practice. A multivariate regression analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 266 pharmacists (39.3%) responded to the survey. Most respondents agreed that prescribing is important to the profession and relevant to their practice, and that it might enhance job satisfaction. Additionally, respondents agreed that they had the expertise to prescribe. Respondents perceived prescribing as having the potential to positively affect behaviour, including deprescribing, prescribing at time of discharge or transfer, and renewing medications. Enablers to applying for pharmacist prescribing authority included perceived positive impact on patient care and the profession, level of support from management and coworkers, and personal ability. No barriers were identified. About two-thirds of pharmacists indicated they would likely apply for prescribing authority if it were granted through legislation. Pharmacists with a clinical practice or research role were significantly more likely to apply to be a prescriber, whereas those with more than 10 years of experience were less likely to apply.ConclusionsIn this study, health authority-based pharmacists held positive attitudes and beliefs about the value and impact of independent prescribing of medications on their practice and the profession. There were no perceived barriers to applying for prescribing authority or to incorporating prescribing into practice.

Project description:Background: Physical Activity Referral Schemes (PARS), including exercise referral schemes, are a popular approach to health improvement, but understanding of effectiveness is limited by considerable heterogeneity in reporting and evaluation. We aimed to gain consensus for a PARS taxonomy as a comprehensive method for reporting and recording of such schemes.Methods: We invited 62 experts from PARS policy, research and practice to complete a modified Delphi study. In round one, participants rated the need for a PARS taxonomy, the suitability of three proposed classification levels and commented on proposed elements. In round two, participants rated proposed taxonomy elements on an 11-point Likert scale. Elements scoring a median of ?7, indicating high agreement, were included in the final taxonomy.Results: Of those invited, 47 (75.8%) participated in round one, with high retention in round two (n?=?43; 91.5%). 42 were UK-based, meaning the resultant taxonomy has been scrutinised for fit to the UK context only. The study gained consensus for a three-level taxonomy: Level 1: PARS classification (primary classification, provider, setting, conditions accepted [have or at risk of], activity type and funding). Level 2: scheme characteristics (staff structure, staff qualifications, behaviour change theories, behaviour change techniques, referral source, referrers, referral process, scheme duration, session frequency, session length, session times, session type, exit routes, action in case of non-attendance, baseline assessment, exit assessment, feedback to referrer and exclusion criteria) and Level 3: participant measures (demographics, monitoring and evaluation, and measures of change).Conclusion: Using a modified Delphi method, this study developed UK-based consensus on a PARS classification taxonomy. We encourage PARS practitioners and public health colleagues, especially those working with similar service models internationally, to test, refine and use this taxonomy to inform policy and practice.

Project description:IntroductionPregnant women can experience barriers and facilitators towards achieving smoking cessation. We sought consensus from smoking cessation practitioners on how influential pre-identified barriers and facilitators can be on pregnant women's smoking behaviour, and how difficult these might be to manage. Suggestions for techniques that could help overcome the barriers or enhance the facilitators were elicited and consensus sought on the appropriateness for their use in practice.MethodsForty-four practitioners who provided cessation support to pregnant women completed a three-round modified Delphi survey. Round one sought consensus on the 'influence' and 'difficulty' of the barriers and facilitators, and gathered respondents' suggestions on ways to address these. Rounds two and three sought further consensus on the barriers and facilitators and on 'appropriateness' of the respondent-suggested techniques. The techniques were coded for behaviour change techniques (BCTs) content using existing taxonomies.ResultsBarriers and facilitators considered to be the most important mainly related to the influence of significant others and the women's motivation & self-efficacy. Having a supportive partner was considered the most influential, whereas lack of support from partner was the only barrier that reached consensus as being difficult to manage. Barriers relating to social norms were also considered influential, however these received poor coverage of respondent-suggested techniques. Those considered the easiest to address mainly related to aspects of cessation support, including misconceptions surrounding the use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Barriers and facilitators relating to the women's motivation & self-efficacy, such as the want to protect the baby, were also considered as being particularly easy to address. Fifty of the 54 respondent-suggested techniques reached consensus as being appropriate. Those considered the most appropriate ranged from providing support early, giving correct information on NRT, highlighting risks and benefits and reinforcing motivating beliefs. Thirty-three BCTs were identified from the respondent-suggested techniques. 'Social support (unspecified)', 'Tailor interactions appropriately' and 'Problem solving' were the most frequently coded BCTs.ConclusionsInvolving partners in quit attempts was advocated. Existing support could be potentially improved by establishing appropriate ways to address barriers relating to pregnant smokers' 'social norms'. In general, providing consistent and motivating support seemed favourable.

Dataset Information

A Delphi study to explore and gain consensus regarding the most important barriers and facilitators affecting physiotherapist and pharmacist non-medical prescribing.

Publications

A Delphi study to explore and gain consensus regarding the most important barriers and facilitators affecting physiotherapist and pharmacist non-medical prescribing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets