ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2022
Designated prescribing practitioners: a theory-based cross-sectional study of stakeholders' views on implementation of a novel pharmacy regulator mandated preceptorship model.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScottish Government is increasing independent prescribers (IP) in community pharmacy (CP). A new preceptorship model using IPs as Designated Prescribing Practitioners (DPPs) has been introduced.
aimTo investigate stakeholder views of implementation of a novel regulator mandated IP course preceptorship model.
methodA theory-based online pre-piloted survey of stakeholders including e.g. directors of pharmacy, prescribing, education leads, policy & strategy leads and CPs. Questionnaire development used Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and a DPP Competency Framework. Data were analysed descriptively and presented with mapping to CFIR constructs.
resultsOf ninety-nine responses 82.5% (80/97) responded 'yes' to '..abilities in reporting concerns..' and 53.1% (51/96) indicating 'no' to '..anticipated issues with clinical and diagnostic skills'. CFIR related facilitators included agreement that; there was tension for change with 84 (85%) indicating '….urgent need to implement role …', that incentives are likely to help (6566%) and small pilots would help (8588%). Barriers were evident related to 'unsure' responses about sufficiency of; DPP capacity (39/97, 40.2%), time (48/96, 50%) and support and resources (4445%) to undertake the role. Concerns were expressed with 81 (83%) in agreement or unsure that leadership commitment may be lacking and 48 (48.9%) were 'unsure' about availability of good training for the DPP role.
conclusionThere was DPP role positivity but expressed barriers and facilitators at policy, organisational and individual practitioner levels needing further consideration. Further research is warranted on uptake and embedding of the role.
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.