Expanded prescribing

A comparison of the views of Australian hospital and community pharmacists

Kreshnik Hoti, Jeffery Hughes, Bruce Sunderland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Community pharmacies and hospitals are the two main professional areas for pharmacists. There is currently a lack of comparison of pharmacists working in these two distinct settings in relation to an expanded prescribing role.

Objective: To compare the attitudes of hospital and community pharmacists regarding an expanded prescribing role. Setting Australian pharmacists.

Methods: A self-administered postal survey was used to collect the data. Data analysis was performed using SPSS ® v19. Kendall's tau-c test was used to compare the mean values between categorical variables (i.e. hospital or community pharmacists) and continuous variables measuring attitudes on a Likert scale (i.e. reasons in favour and barriers of pharmacist prescribing, preferred therapeutic areas of prescribing and prescribing models). A Chi square test was used to analyse categorical variables (i.e. demographics).

Main outcome measure: The opinion of hospital and community pharmacists regarding an expanded prescribing role.

Results: A response rate of 40.4 % was achieved (1,049/2,592). Where significant differences were located, community pharmacists were more supportive of all proffered potential reasons in favour of pharmacist prescribing (p < 0.05) whereas hospital pharmacists were more in agreement with all suggested barriers to such a role (p < 0.05). In a supplementary (collaborative) prescribing model, hospital pharmacists were more confident than community pharmacists in prescribing for heart failure (p < 0.001) and anticoagulant therapies (p = 0.004). In an independent prescribing model hospital pharmacists were more supportive of prescribing anticoagulant therapies (p = 0.002). Significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to their support for independent prescribing (p = 0.020) and extension of the emergency supply 3 days rule to 30 days (p = 0.011).

Conclusion: This study suggests that there are differences between hospital and community pharmacists in what they regard as potential reasons in favour of an expanded pharmacist prescribing role, perceived barriers to such a role and whether to prescribe independently of doctors. Hospital pharmacists' attitudinal differences in terms of support for certain therapeutic areas of prescribing reflects probably their existing active role in clinical decision making processes in patients who are often seriously ill.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)469-475
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
Volume35
Issue number3
Early online date3 Apr 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Pharmacists
Anticoagulants
Decision making
Pharmacies
Community Hospital
Chi-Square Distribution
Therapeutics
Emergencies

Cite this

@article{12669cf9a42c484e983564c273b93677,
title = "Expanded prescribing: A comparison of the views of Australian hospital and community pharmacists",
abstract = "Background: Community pharmacies and hospitals are the two main professional areas for pharmacists. There is currently a lack of comparison of pharmacists working in these two distinct settings in relation to an expanded prescribing role. Objective: To compare the attitudes of hospital and community pharmacists regarding an expanded prescribing role. Setting Australian pharmacists. Methods: A self-administered postal survey was used to collect the data. Data analysis was performed using SPSS {\circledR} v19. Kendall's tau-c test was used to compare the mean values between categorical variables (i.e. hospital or community pharmacists) and continuous variables measuring attitudes on a Likert scale (i.e. reasons in favour and barriers of pharmacist prescribing, preferred therapeutic areas of prescribing and prescribing models). A Chi square test was used to analyse categorical variables (i.e. demographics). Main outcome measure: The opinion of hospital and community pharmacists regarding an expanded prescribing role. Results: A response rate of 40.4 {\%} was achieved (1,049/2,592). Where significant differences were located, community pharmacists were more supportive of all proffered potential reasons in favour of pharmacist prescribing (p < 0.05) whereas hospital pharmacists were more in agreement with all suggested barriers to such a role (p < 0.05). In a supplementary (collaborative) prescribing model, hospital pharmacists were more confident than community pharmacists in prescribing for heart failure (p < 0.001) and anticoagulant therapies (p = 0.004). In an independent prescribing model hospital pharmacists were more supportive of prescribing anticoagulant therapies (p = 0.002). Significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to their support for independent prescribing (p = 0.020) and extension of the emergency supply 3 days rule to 30 days (p = 0.011). Conclusion: This study suggests that there are differences between hospital and community pharmacists in what they regard as potential reasons in favour of an expanded pharmacist prescribing role, perceived barriers to such a role and whether to prescribe independently of doctors. Hospital pharmacists' attitudinal differences in terms of support for certain therapeutic areas of prescribing reflects probably their existing active role in clinical decision making processes in patients who are often seriously ill.",
keywords = "Australia, Community pharmacists, Hospital pharmacists, Independent prescribing, Pharmacist prescribing, Pharmacist role, Supplementary prescribing",
author = "Kreshnik Hoti and Jeffery Hughes and Bruce Sunderland",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11096-013-9766-z",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "469--475",
journal = "International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy",
issn = "0928-1231",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "3",

}

Expanded prescribing : A comparison of the views of Australian hospital and community pharmacists. / Hoti, Kreshnik; Hughes, Jeffery; Sunderland, Bruce.

In: International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, Vol. 35, No. 3, 01.06.2013, p. 469-475.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expanded prescribing

T2 - A comparison of the views of Australian hospital and community pharmacists

AU - Hoti, Kreshnik

AU - Hughes, Jeffery

AU - Sunderland, Bruce

PY - 2013/6/1

Y1 - 2013/6/1

N2 - Background: Community pharmacies and hospitals are the two main professional areas for pharmacists. There is currently a lack of comparison of pharmacists working in these two distinct settings in relation to an expanded prescribing role. Objective: To compare the attitudes of hospital and community pharmacists regarding an expanded prescribing role. Setting Australian pharmacists. Methods: A self-administered postal survey was used to collect the data. Data analysis was performed using SPSS ® v19. Kendall's tau-c test was used to compare the mean values between categorical variables (i.e. hospital or community pharmacists) and continuous variables measuring attitudes on a Likert scale (i.e. reasons in favour and barriers of pharmacist prescribing, preferred therapeutic areas of prescribing and prescribing models). A Chi square test was used to analyse categorical variables (i.e. demographics). Main outcome measure: The opinion of hospital and community pharmacists regarding an expanded prescribing role. Results: A response rate of 40.4 % was achieved (1,049/2,592). Where significant differences were located, community pharmacists were more supportive of all proffered potential reasons in favour of pharmacist prescribing (p < 0.05) whereas hospital pharmacists were more in agreement with all suggested barriers to such a role (p < 0.05). In a supplementary (collaborative) prescribing model, hospital pharmacists were more confident than community pharmacists in prescribing for heart failure (p < 0.001) and anticoagulant therapies (p = 0.004). In an independent prescribing model hospital pharmacists were more supportive of prescribing anticoagulant therapies (p = 0.002). Significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to their support for independent prescribing (p = 0.020) and extension of the emergency supply 3 days rule to 30 days (p = 0.011). Conclusion: This study suggests that there are differences between hospital and community pharmacists in what they regard as potential reasons in favour of an expanded pharmacist prescribing role, perceived barriers to such a role and whether to prescribe independently of doctors. Hospital pharmacists' attitudinal differences in terms of support for certain therapeutic areas of prescribing reflects probably their existing active role in clinical decision making processes in patients who are often seriously ill.

AB - Background: Community pharmacies and hospitals are the two main professional areas for pharmacists. There is currently a lack of comparison of pharmacists working in these two distinct settings in relation to an expanded prescribing role. Objective: To compare the attitudes of hospital and community pharmacists regarding an expanded prescribing role. Setting Australian pharmacists. Methods: A self-administered postal survey was used to collect the data. Data analysis was performed using SPSS ® v19. Kendall's tau-c test was used to compare the mean values between categorical variables (i.e. hospital or community pharmacists) and continuous variables measuring attitudes on a Likert scale (i.e. reasons in favour and barriers of pharmacist prescribing, preferred therapeutic areas of prescribing and prescribing models). A Chi square test was used to analyse categorical variables (i.e. demographics). Main outcome measure: The opinion of hospital and community pharmacists regarding an expanded prescribing role. Results: A response rate of 40.4 % was achieved (1,049/2,592). Where significant differences were located, community pharmacists were more supportive of all proffered potential reasons in favour of pharmacist prescribing (p < 0.05) whereas hospital pharmacists were more in agreement with all suggested barriers to such a role (p < 0.05). In a supplementary (collaborative) prescribing model, hospital pharmacists were more confident than community pharmacists in prescribing for heart failure (p < 0.001) and anticoagulant therapies (p = 0.004). In an independent prescribing model hospital pharmacists were more supportive of prescribing anticoagulant therapies (p = 0.002). Significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to their support for independent prescribing (p = 0.020) and extension of the emergency supply 3 days rule to 30 days (p = 0.011). Conclusion: This study suggests that there are differences between hospital and community pharmacists in what they regard as potential reasons in favour of an expanded pharmacist prescribing role, perceived barriers to such a role and whether to prescribe independently of doctors. Hospital pharmacists' attitudinal differences in terms of support for certain therapeutic areas of prescribing reflects probably their existing active role in clinical decision making processes in patients who are often seriously ill.

KW - Australia

KW - Community pharmacists

KW - Hospital pharmacists

KW - Independent prescribing

KW - Pharmacist prescribing

KW - Pharmacist role

KW - Supplementary prescribing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878267425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11096-013-9766-z

DO - 10.1007/s11096-013-9766-z

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 469

EP - 475

JO - International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

JF - International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

SN - 0928-1231

IS - 3

ER -