Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36561825›Full record

ArticleFuture healthcare journal2022

Physician associate prescribing: perspectives, practices and pathways.

Brogan N Guest, Chanceeth Chandrakanthan, Kate Bascombe, Jeannie Watkins

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future healthcare journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Corrigendum: Updated declaration of interest.Future healthcare journal · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Brogan N GuestSt George's, University of London, London, UK.
Chanceeth ChandrakanthanSt George's, University of London, London, UK.
Kate BascombeBrighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Jeannie WatkinsSt George's, University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the introduction of statutory regulation of physician associates (PAs) through the General Medical Council (GMC) expected in 2024, we anticipate a consultation on whether PAs will be given prescribing rights and how this will happen. In anticipation of this consultation, we surveyed the opinions of PAs and healthcare professionals (HCPs) who work with them regarding prescribing rights for PAs. We had a combined response of more than 500 and the survey results show that the vast majority of respondents across the two groups are in favour of prescribing rights for PAs. While both HCPs and PAs overall feel that PAs should have prescribing rights, PAs prefer generalised rights while HCPs recommend specialist rights only. To ensure safe prescribing, we advocate for a safety assessment followed by a period of supervision in their specialty before prescribing rights are given: our data show that confidence, knowledge and safety increases with length of time in specialty. Prescribing rights for PAs will help them become more independent and valuable assets to the healthcare team, increasing efficiency and improving patient care.

Indexed as

PAphysician associateprescribing

Identifiers

PMID36561825
PMCPMC9761462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.