ReviewJournal of foot and ankle research2022
A decade of independent prescribing in the UK: a review of progress.
Review in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Learning Experiences of Non-Medical Prescribing Among Podiatry Students on Clinical Placement.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2026Article
- Independent prescribing in the UK: insights from the Department of Health Allied Health Professions Medicines Project team.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background2022 marks a decade since the profession of podiatry secured independent prescribing rights in the UK. Widely viewed as a significant milestone, its advent appeared to herald a new age of practice, with increased autonomy, a broader scope of practice and improved patient care. Access to any medicine within the British National Formulary (with a few notable exceptions) seemed to signal an end to the perennial difficulties and frequent disappointments in obtaining ease of access to medicines necessary for effective practice. MAIN BODY: Recent attempts to expand the scope of prescribing practice to include access to a broader range of controlled drugs (CDs) have led to unanticipated complications which may even threaten existing rights. These issues highlight the limitations of current independent prescribing and the continuing inability of podiatrists to access certain key medicines, primarily controlled drugs. Reliance on specified 'lists' of approved medicines, whether a controlled drug list for prescribers or the use of statutory exemptions by non-prescriber podiatrists, remain inflexible and difficult to change. The data underpinning much of this paper is derived from the work undertaken by the authors as representatives of podiatry on NHS England's Chief Professions' Officers' Medicines project, in particular involving submissions to the Commission on Human Medicines and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Medicines, spanning the years 2017-2021. It describes a complex process, and highlights a misalignment between two legislative frameworks that threaten to unravel existing rights. SHORT
conclusionOngoing difficulties relating to controlled drugs illustrate the problematic nature of current supply, administration and prescribing rights in podiatry. Efforts to keep pace with periodic legal reclassifications of medicines are constrained by limited and inflexible legal mechanisms, and formal approval for extended access via prescribing remains unpredictable and complex. For prescriber and non-prescriber
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.