ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2023
Independent prescribing in the UK: insights from the Department of Health Allied Health Professions Medicines Project team.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe UK medicines legislation was amended ten years ago (2013) to allow podiatrists and physiotherapists independent prescribing rights, the first of the allied health professions to do so. Non-medical prescribing formed one part of a broader policy agenda promoting role flexibility in response to the challenge of an ageing population and the need to maintain effective health provision in the face of a contracting workforce.
aimThe aim of this study was to outline the experiences of the Department of Health AHP medicines project board team in working towards independent prescribing for podiatry and physiotherapy, with a particular focus on the challenges encountered.
methodsIn depth, open-ended interviews were conducted with eight of the core members of the project team, drawn from those individuals who served throughout the duration of the project (2010-2013). Included were the former Department of Health Chief and Deputy Chief Allied Health Professions Officers; the Department of Health Engagement and Communications Officer; representatives of the Health and Care Professions Council; the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; the Council of Deans of Health; the Royal College of Podiatry and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (The team also included the representative of the Allied Health Professions Federation. However, as that representative is also a researcher in this study, he has recused himself from any role as a participant.). Data were transcribed and subject to a thematic analysis.
resultsA complex picture of the project emerged revealing a range of obstacles and challenges, including inter-professional role boundary tensions and negative prior assumptions about the two professions. Success hinged upon the adoption of a dual strategy involving submission of a robust case of need focused on patient benefit coupled with the careful management of professional expectations. Underpinning theory from the sociology of the professions offers a supportive explanatory framework for understanding the relationships between the various stakeholders involved.
conclusionsUltimately, success depended upon aligning the project aims with healthcare policy through a clear focus on patient benefit. Balancing competing professional and policy demands through a continual emphasis on improved patient care laid the foundations for future projects by other allied health professions.
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.