Cargando…

Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES: Non-medical prescribing (NMP) is a key feature of the UK healthcare system that refers to the legal prescribing rights granted to nurses, pharmacists and other non-medical healthcare professionals who have completed an approved training programme. NMP is deemed to facilitate better patie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Babashahi, Saeideh, Carey, Nicola, Jani, Yogini, Hart, Kath, Hounsome, Natalia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10163523/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37130673
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067907
_version_ 1785037899588173824
author Babashahi, Saeideh
Carey, Nicola
Jani, Yogini
Hart, Kath
Hounsome, Natalia
author_facet Babashahi, Saeideh
Carey, Nicola
Jani, Yogini
Hart, Kath
Hounsome, Natalia
author_sort Babashahi, Saeideh
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Non-medical prescribing (NMP) is a key feature of the UK healthcare system that refers to the legal prescribing rights granted to nurses, pharmacists and other non-medical healthcare professionals who have completed an approved training programme. NMP is deemed to facilitate better patient care and timely access to medicine. The aim of this scoping review is to identify, synthesise and report the evidence on the costs, consequences and value for money of NMP provided by non-medical healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Scoping review DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched from 1999 to 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed and grey literature written in English were included. The research was limited to original studies evaluating economic values only or both consequences and costs of NMP. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The identified studies were screened independently by two reviewers for final inclusion. The results were reported in tabular form and descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 420 records were identified. Of these, nine studies evaluating and comparing NMP with patient group discussions, general practitioner-led usual care or services provided by non-prescribing colleagues were included. All studies evaluated the costs and economic values of prescribing services by non-medical prescribers, and eight assessed patient, health or clinical outcomes. Three studies showed pharmacist prescribing was superior in all outcomes and cost saving at a large scale. Others reported similar results in most health and patient outcomes across other non-medical prescribers and control groups. NMP was deemed resource intensive for both providers and other groups of non-medical prescribers (eg, nurses, physiotherapists, podiatrists). CONCLUSIONS: The review demonstrated the need for quality evidence from more rigorous methodological studies examining all relevant costs and consequences to show value for money in NMP and inform the commissioning of NMP for different groups of healthcare professionals.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10163523
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101635232023-05-07 Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review Babashahi, Saeideh Carey, Nicola Jani, Yogini Hart, Kath Hounsome, Natalia BMJ Open Health Economics OBJECTIVES: Non-medical prescribing (NMP) is a key feature of the UK healthcare system that refers to the legal prescribing rights granted to nurses, pharmacists and other non-medical healthcare professionals who have completed an approved training programme. NMP is deemed to facilitate better patient care and timely access to medicine. The aim of this scoping review is to identify, synthesise and report the evidence on the costs, consequences and value for money of NMP provided by non-medical healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Scoping review DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched from 1999 to 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed and grey literature written in English were included. The research was limited to original studies evaluating economic values only or both consequences and costs of NMP. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The identified studies were screened independently by two reviewers for final inclusion. The results were reported in tabular form and descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 420 records were identified. Of these, nine studies evaluating and comparing NMP with patient group discussions, general practitioner-led usual care or services provided by non-prescribing colleagues were included. All studies evaluated the costs and economic values of prescribing services by non-medical prescribers, and eight assessed patient, health or clinical outcomes. Three studies showed pharmacist prescribing was superior in all outcomes and cost saving at a large scale. Others reported similar results in most health and patient outcomes across other non-medical prescribers and control groups. NMP was deemed resource intensive for both providers and other groups of non-medical prescribers (eg, nurses, physiotherapists, podiatrists). CONCLUSIONS: The review demonstrated the need for quality evidence from more rigorous methodological studies examining all relevant costs and consequences to show value for money in NMP and inform the commissioning of NMP for different groups of healthcare professionals. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10163523/ /pubmed/37130673 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067907 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Economics
Babashahi, Saeideh
Carey, Nicola
Jani, Yogini
Hart, Kath
Hounsome, Natalia
Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review
title Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review
title_full Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review
title_fullStr Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review
title_short Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review
title_sort costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review
topic Health Economics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10163523/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37130673
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067907
work_keys_str_mv AT babashahisaeideh costsconsequencesandvalueformoneyinnonmedicalprescribingascopingreview
AT careynicola costsconsequencesandvalueformoneyinnonmedicalprescribingascopingreview
AT janiyogini costsconsequencesandvalueformoneyinnonmedicalprescribingascopingreview
AT hartkath costsconsequencesandvalueformoneyinnonmedicalprescribingascopingreview
AT hounsomenatalia costsconsequencesandvalueformoneyinnonmedicalprescribingascopingreview