Cooper Richard J, Lymn Joanne, Anderson Claire, Avery Anthony, Bissell Paul, Guillaume Louise, Hutchinson Allen, Murphy Elizabeth, Ratcliffe Julie, Ward Paul
Division of Social Research in Medicines and Health, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, UK.
BMC Med Educ. 2008 Dec 5;8:57. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-8-57.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
近年来,英国为药剂师和护士等职业引入了非医疗处方权,这带来了更多的责任和机遇,但也伴随着培训问题。与一些国际模式不同,在英国成为一名非医疗处方者需要完成许多高等教育机构提供的认可培训课程,在这些课程中学习处方所需的技能和知识。
探讨药剂师对在补充处方(SP)课程中学习处方的看法和经验,特别是关于跨专业学习、课程内容以及处方在实践中的后续应用。
2007年4月,向英格兰所有808名注册SP药剂师发送了邮政问卷调查,探讨人口统计学、培训、处方、安全文化以及对SP的总体看法。
经过一次跟进,411名(51%)药剂师做出了回应。82%的人认为SP培训有用,58%的人认为课程提供了适当的知识,62%的人认为获得了必要的处方技能。临床检查、咨询技能培训以及与医生的实践经验受到高度重视;药理学培训和课程交付的某些方面受到批评。报告了对跨专业学习的不同看法——对其他专业的见解受到重视,但知识和技能差异被认为存在问题。67%的人认为SP和最近的独立处方(IP)应该一起教授,希望有更多的诊断培训;很少有药剂师接受过IP培训,但许多人正在培训或打算培训。药剂师对处方培训的态度与他们在2004年至2007年期间接受培训的时间没有关联,但较早一批人在实践中更有可能使用补充处方。
药剂师似乎重视他们的SP培训,并提出了可以为未来课程提供参考的改进建议。然而,跨专业学习的好处可能与提供特定专业培训相冲突。SP培训可能被视为药剂师获得完全IP地位的职业规划中的一个工具性“垫脚石”。