Open AccessBarriers to pharmacist prescribing: a scoping review comparing the UK, New Zealand, Canadian and Australian experiences
Author(s) -
Zhou Mingming,
Desborough Jane,
Parkinson Anne,
Douglas Kirsty,
McDonald David,
Boom Katja
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
international journal of pharmacy practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.42
H-Index - 37
eISSN - 2042-7174
pISSN - 0961-7671
DOI - 10.1111/ijpp.12557
Subject(s) - medicine , grey literature , competence (human resources) , cinahl , inclusion (mineral) , pharmacist , context (archaeology) , legislation , nursing , stakeholder , family medicine , medline , public relations , political science , psychological intervention , management , gender studies , paleontology , sociology , pharmacy , law , economics , biology
Objectives Non‐medical prescribers, including pharmacists, have been found to achieve comparable clinical outcomes with doctors for certain health conditions. Legislation supporting pharmacist prescribing (PP) has been implemented in the United Kingdom (UK), Canada and New Zealand (NZ); however, to date, Australian pharmacists have not been extended prescribing rights. The purpose of this review was to describe the barriers to PP found in the literature from the UK, Canada, NZ and Australia, and examine the implications of these for the development of PP in Australia. Methods We conducted a scoping review, which included peer‐reviewed and grey literature, and consultation with stakeholders. Sources – Scopus, PubMed and CINAHL; Google Scholar, OpenGrey and organisational websites from January 2003 to March 2018 in the UK, Canada, NZ and Australia. Inclusion criteria – articles published in English, related to implementation of PP and articulated barriers to PP. Key findings Of 863 unique records, 120 were reviewed and 64 articles were eligible for inclusion. Three key themes emerged: (1) Socio‐political context, (2) Resourcing issues and (3) Prescriber competence. The most common barriers were inadequate training regarding diagnostic knowledge and skills, inadequate support from authorities and stakeholders, and insufficient funding/reimbursement. Conclusions If implementation of PP is to occur, attention needs to be focused on addressing identified barriers to PP implementation, including fostering a favourable socio‐political context and prescriber competence. As such, a concerted effort is required to develop clear policy pathways, including targeted training courses, raising stakeholder recognition of PP and identifying specific funding, infrastructure and resourcing needs to ensure the smooth integration of pharmacist prescribers within interprofessional clinical teams.