Cargando…

A comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals across the world have prescribing rights for medicines: over 90,000 of the eligible United Kingdom workforce are qualified as non-doctor prescribers. In order to inform future developments, it is important to under...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carey, Nicola, Edwards, Judith, Otter, Simon, Gage, Heather, Williams, Peter, Courtenay, Molly, Moore, Ann, Stenner, Karen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7687831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33234141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05918-8
_version_ 1783613604023500800
author Carey, Nicola
Edwards, Judith
Otter, Simon
Gage, Heather
Williams, Peter
Courtenay, Molly
Moore, Ann
Stenner, Karen
author_facet Carey, Nicola
Edwards, Judith
Otter, Simon
Gage, Heather
Williams, Peter
Courtenay, Molly
Moore, Ann
Stenner, Karen
author_sort Carey, Nicola
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals across the world have prescribing rights for medicines: over 90,000 of the eligible United Kingdom workforce are qualified as non-doctor prescribers. In order to inform future developments, it is important to understand the benefits and impact of prescribing by allied health professionals including physiotherapists and podiatrists. AIM: to compare outcomes of physiotherapist and podiatrist Independent Prescriber (PP- IP) patients with those of physiotherapist and podiatrist non-prescribers (PP-NPs). Outcome measures included patient satisfaction, ease of access to services, quality of life and cost implications. Design: a mixed method comparative case study. METHODS: Using mixed methods of data collection, outcomes were compared between 7 sites where care was provided from a PP-IP (3 podiatrist and 4 physiotherapist IPs) and 7 sites from a PP-NP (3 podiatrist and 4 physiotherapist NPs). Patients were followed up for 2 months (2015–2016). RESULTS: 489 patients were recruited: n = 243 IP sites, and n = 246 NP sites. Independent prescribing was found to be highly acceptable, and equivalent in terms of quality of life (p > 0.05) and patient satisfaction (p ≤ 0.05) compared to care provided by NPs. PP-IP care delivery was found to be more resource intensive than PP-NP, with longer consultation duration for IPs (around 6.5 mins), and a higher proportion of physiotherapy patients discussed with medical colleagues (around 9.5 min). CONCLUSION: This study provides new knowledge that PP-IPs provide high levels of care. PP-IP care delivery was found to be more resource intensive. Further research is required to explore cost effectiveness. A more focussed exploration within each profession using targeted outcome measures would enable a more robust comparison, inform future developments around the world and help ensure non-doctor prescribing is recognised as an effective way to alleviate shortfalls in the global workforce.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7687831
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76878312020-11-30 A comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists Carey, Nicola Edwards, Judith Otter, Simon Gage, Heather Williams, Peter Courtenay, Molly Moore, Ann Stenner, Karen BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals across the world have prescribing rights for medicines: over 90,000 of the eligible United Kingdom workforce are qualified as non-doctor prescribers. In order to inform future developments, it is important to understand the benefits and impact of prescribing by allied health professionals including physiotherapists and podiatrists. AIM: to compare outcomes of physiotherapist and podiatrist Independent Prescriber (PP- IP) patients with those of physiotherapist and podiatrist non-prescribers (PP-NPs). Outcome measures included patient satisfaction, ease of access to services, quality of life and cost implications. Design: a mixed method comparative case study. METHODS: Using mixed methods of data collection, outcomes were compared between 7 sites where care was provided from a PP-IP (3 podiatrist and 4 physiotherapist IPs) and 7 sites from a PP-NP (3 podiatrist and 4 physiotherapist NPs). Patients were followed up for 2 months (2015–2016). RESULTS: 489 patients were recruited: n = 243 IP sites, and n = 246 NP sites. Independent prescribing was found to be highly acceptable, and equivalent in terms of quality of life (p > 0.05) and patient satisfaction (p ≤ 0.05) compared to care provided by NPs. PP-IP care delivery was found to be more resource intensive than PP-NP, with longer consultation duration for IPs (around 6.5 mins), and a higher proportion of physiotherapy patients discussed with medical colleagues (around 9.5 min). CONCLUSION: This study provides new knowledge that PP-IPs provide high levels of care. PP-IP care delivery was found to be more resource intensive. Further research is required to explore cost effectiveness. A more focussed exploration within each profession using targeted outcome measures would enable a more robust comparison, inform future developments around the world and help ensure non-doctor prescribing is recognised as an effective way to alleviate shortfalls in the global workforce. BioMed Central 2020-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7687831/ /pubmed/33234141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05918-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Carey, Nicola
Edwards, Judith
Otter, Simon
Gage, Heather
Williams, Peter
Courtenay, Molly
Moore, Ann
Stenner, Karen
A comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists
title A comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists
title_full A comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists
title_fullStr A comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists
title_full_unstemmed A comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists
title_short A comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists
title_sort comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7687831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33234141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05918-8
work_keys_str_mv AT careynicola acomparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT edwardsjudith acomparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT ottersimon acomparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT gageheather acomparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT williamspeter acomparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT courtenaymolly acomparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT mooreann acomparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT stennerkaren acomparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT careynicola comparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT edwardsjudith comparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT ottersimon comparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT gageheather comparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT williamspeter comparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT courtenaymolly comparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT mooreann comparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists
AT stennerkaren comparativecasestudyofprescribingandnonprescribingphysiotherapistsandpodiatrists