Learning to prescribe: pharmacists' experiences of supplementary prescribing training in England

Richard J Cooper, Joanne Lymn, Claire Anderson, Anthony Avery, Paul Bissell, Louise Guillaume, Allen Hutchinson, Elizabeth Murphy, Julie Ratcliffe, Paul Ward

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background
The introduction of non-medical prescribing for professions such as pharmacy and nursing in recent years offers additional responsibilities and opportunities but attendant training issues. In the UK and in contrast to some international models, becoming a non-medical prescriber involves the completion of an accredited training course offered by many higher education institutions, where the skills and knowledge necessary for prescribing are learnt. Aims: to explore pharmacists' perceptions and experiences of learning to prescribe on supplementary prescribing (SP) courses, particularly in relation to inter-professional learning, course content and subsequent use of prescribing in practice.

Methods
A postal questionnaire survey was sent to all 808 SP registered pharmacists in England in April 2007, exploring demographic, training, prescribing, safety culture and general perceptions of SP.

Results
After one follow-up, 411 (51%) of pharmacists responded. 82% agreed SP training was useful, 58% agreed courses provided appropriate knowledge and 62% agreed that the necessary prescribing skills were gained. Clinical examination, consultation skills training and practical experience with doctors were valued highly; pharmacology training and some aspects of course delivery were criticised. Mixed views on inter-professional learning were reported – insights into other professions being valued but knowledge and skills differences considered problematic. 67% believed SP and recent independent prescribing (IP) should be taught together, with more diagnostic training wanted; few pharmacists trained in IP, but many were training or intending to train. There was no association between pharmacists' attitudes towards prescribing training and when they undertook training between 2004 and 2007 but earlier cohorts were more likely to be using supplementary prescribing in practice.

Conclusion
Pharmacists appeared to value their SP training and suggested improvements that could inform future courses. The benefits of inter-professional learning, however, may conflict with providing profession-specific training. SP training may be perceived to be an instrumental 'stepping stone' in pharmacists' professional project of gaining full IP status.
LanguageEnglish
Number of pages8
JournalBMC Medical Education
Volume8
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

supplementary qualification
pharmacist
learning
experience
profession
pharmacology

Cite this

Cooper, Richard J ; Lymn, Joanne ; Anderson, Claire ; Avery, Anthony ; Bissell, Paul ; Guillaume, Louise ; Hutchinson, Allen ; Murphy, Elizabeth ; Ratcliffe, Julie ; Ward, Paul. / Learning to prescribe : pharmacists' experiences of supplementary prescribing training in England. In: BMC Medical Education. 2008 ; Vol. 8, No. 1.
@article{62f2f30061ff4a7399fc1c3f02da894b,
title = "Learning to prescribe: pharmacists' experiences of supplementary prescribing training in England",
abstract = "BackgroundThe introduction of non-medical prescribing for professions such as pharmacy and nursing in recent years offers additional responsibilities and opportunities but attendant training issues. In the UK and in contrast to some international models, becoming a non-medical prescriber involves the completion of an accredited training course offered by many higher education institutions, where the skills and knowledge necessary for prescribing are learnt. Aims: to explore pharmacists' perceptions and experiences of learning to prescribe on supplementary prescribing (SP) courses, particularly in relation to inter-professional learning, course content and subsequent use of prescribing in practice.MethodsA postal questionnaire survey was sent to all 808 SP registered pharmacists in England in April 2007, exploring demographic, training, prescribing, safety culture and general perceptions of SP.ResultsAfter one follow-up, 411 (51{\%}) of pharmacists responded. 82{\%} agreed SP training was useful, 58{\%} agreed courses provided appropriate knowledge and 62{\%} agreed that the necessary prescribing skills were gained. Clinical examination, consultation skills training and practical experience with doctors were valued highly; pharmacology training and some aspects of course delivery were criticised. Mixed views on inter-professional learning were reported – insights into other professions being valued but knowledge and skills differences considered problematic. 67{\%} believed SP and recent independent prescribing (IP) should be taught together, with more diagnostic training wanted; few pharmacists trained in IP, but many were training or intending to train. There was no association between pharmacists' attitudes towards prescribing training and when they undertook training between 2004 and 2007 but earlier cohorts were more likely to be using supplementary prescribing in practice.ConclusionPharmacists appeared to value their SP training and suggested improvements that could inform future courses. The benefits of inter-professional learning, however, may conflict with providing profession-specific training. SP training may be perceived to be an instrumental 'stepping stone' in pharmacists' professional project of gaining full IP status.",
keywords = "Supplementary prescribe, Training cohort, Consultation skill, Clinical examination, Independent prescribe",
author = "Cooper, {Richard J} and Joanne Lymn and Claire Anderson and Anthony Avery and Paul Bissell and Louise Guillaume and Allen Hutchinson and Elizabeth Murphy and Julie Ratcliffe and Paul Ward",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1186/1472-6920-8-57",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "BMC Medical Education",
issn = "1472-6920",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

Cooper, RJ, Lymn, J, Anderson, C, Avery, A, Bissell, P, Guillaume, L, Hutchinson, A, Murphy, E, Ratcliffe, J & Ward, P 2008, 'Learning to prescribe: pharmacists' experiences of supplementary prescribing training in England', BMC Medical Education, vol. 8, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-8-57

Learning to prescribe : pharmacists' experiences of supplementary prescribing training in England. / Cooper, Richard J; Lymn, Joanne; Anderson, Claire; Avery, Anthony; Bissell, Paul; Guillaume, Louise; Hutchinson, Allen; Murphy, Elizabeth; Ratcliffe, Julie; Ward, Paul.

In: BMC Medical Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, 12.2008.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Learning to prescribe

T2 - BMC Medical Education

AU - Cooper, Richard J

AU - Lymn, Joanne

AU - Anderson, Claire

AU - Avery, Anthony

AU - Bissell, Paul

AU - Guillaume, Louise

AU - Hutchinson, Allen

AU - Murphy, Elizabeth

AU - Ratcliffe, Julie

AU - Ward, Paul

PY - 2008/12

Y1 - 2008/12

N2 - BackgroundThe introduction of non-medical prescribing for professions such as pharmacy and nursing in recent years offers additional responsibilities and opportunities but attendant training issues. In the UK and in contrast to some international models, becoming a non-medical prescriber involves the completion of an accredited training course offered by many higher education institutions, where the skills and knowledge necessary for prescribing are learnt. Aims: to explore pharmacists' perceptions and experiences of learning to prescribe on supplementary prescribing (SP) courses, particularly in relation to inter-professional learning, course content and subsequent use of prescribing in practice.MethodsA postal questionnaire survey was sent to all 808 SP registered pharmacists in England in April 2007, exploring demographic, training, prescribing, safety culture and general perceptions of SP.ResultsAfter one follow-up, 411 (51%) of pharmacists responded. 82% agreed SP training was useful, 58% agreed courses provided appropriate knowledge and 62% agreed that the necessary prescribing skills were gained. Clinical examination, consultation skills training and practical experience with doctors were valued highly; pharmacology training and some aspects of course delivery were criticised. Mixed views on inter-professional learning were reported – insights into other professions being valued but knowledge and skills differences considered problematic. 67% believed SP and recent independent prescribing (IP) should be taught together, with more diagnostic training wanted; few pharmacists trained in IP, but many were training or intending to train. There was no association between pharmacists' attitudes towards prescribing training and when they undertook training between 2004 and 2007 but earlier cohorts were more likely to be using supplementary prescribing in practice.ConclusionPharmacists appeared to value their SP training and suggested improvements that could inform future courses. The benefits of inter-professional learning, however, may conflict with providing profession-specific training. SP training may be perceived to be an instrumental 'stepping stone' in pharmacists' professional project of gaining full IP status.

AB - BackgroundThe introduction of non-medical prescribing for professions such as pharmacy and nursing in recent years offers additional responsibilities and opportunities but attendant training issues. In the UK and in contrast to some international models, becoming a non-medical prescriber involves the completion of an accredited training course offered by many higher education institutions, where the skills and knowledge necessary for prescribing are learnt. Aims: to explore pharmacists' perceptions and experiences of learning to prescribe on supplementary prescribing (SP) courses, particularly in relation to inter-professional learning, course content and subsequent use of prescribing in practice.MethodsA postal questionnaire survey was sent to all 808 SP registered pharmacists in England in April 2007, exploring demographic, training, prescribing, safety culture and general perceptions of SP.ResultsAfter one follow-up, 411 (51%) of pharmacists responded. 82% agreed SP training was useful, 58% agreed courses provided appropriate knowledge and 62% agreed that the necessary prescribing skills were gained. Clinical examination, consultation skills training and practical experience with doctors were valued highly; pharmacology training and some aspects of course delivery were criticised. Mixed views on inter-professional learning were reported – insights into other professions being valued but knowledge and skills differences considered problematic. 67% believed SP and recent independent prescribing (IP) should be taught together, with more diagnostic training wanted; few pharmacists trained in IP, but many were training or intending to train. There was no association between pharmacists' attitudes towards prescribing training and when they undertook training between 2004 and 2007 but earlier cohorts were more likely to be using supplementary prescribing in practice.ConclusionPharmacists appeared to value their SP training and suggested improvements that could inform future courses. The benefits of inter-professional learning, however, may conflict with providing profession-specific training. SP training may be perceived to be an instrumental 'stepping stone' in pharmacists' professional project of gaining full IP status.

KW - Supplementary prescribe

KW - Training cohort

KW - Consultation skill

KW - Clinical examination

KW - Independent prescribe

U2 - 10.1186/1472-6920-8-57

DO - 10.1186/1472-6920-8-57

M3 - Article

VL - 8

JO - BMC Medical Education

JF - BMC Medical Education

SN - 1472-6920

IS - 1

ER -