Views of pharmacists and mentors on experiential learning for pharmacist supplementary prescribing trainees
- 141 Downloads
Objective To explore the views and experiences of pharmacists and their mentoring designated medical practitioners (DMPs) about the ‘period of learning in practice’ (PLP) as part of supplementary prescribing (SP) training. Method Two focus groups (n = 5 and 7) of SP pharmacists were organised in Scotland. The experiences and views of DMPs (n = 13) were explored using one-to-one telephone interviews. The focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework approach. Main outcome measures Views and experiences of pharmacists and DMPs about the PLP. Results Planning the PLP in consultation with the DMP was found to be crucial for an optimal learning experience. Pharmacists who did not have a close working relationship with the medical team had difficulties in identifying a DMP and organising their PLP. Participants stressed the importance of focusing on and achieving the core competencies for prescribers during the PLP. Input from doctors involved in the training of others, review of consultation videos, and formal independent assessment including clinical assessment at the end of the PLP might improve the quality of the PLP. Forums for discussing experiences during the PLP and gathering information might be valuable. Conclusion Our findings have implications for prescribing training for pharmacists in the future. The PLP should focus on core competencies with input from doctors involved in the training of others and have a formal assessment of consultation skills. Support for pharmacists in organising the PLP and forums for discussing experiences during the PLP would be valuable.
KeywordsCompetency Great Britain Medical practitioner Period of learning in practice Pharmacists Scotland Supplementary prescribing
We thank Brian Addison, Laura Binnie and Antonella Tonna for their help with the study and Amber Bowbyes for transcribing the interviews. We acknowledge all pharmacists and medical practitioners who contributed to this study.
This study was funded by a mini-project grant from the Pharmacy Practice Research Trust of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
Conflict of Interest
- 1.Crown J. Review of prescribing, supply & administration of medicines. Final report. London: Department of Health, 1999.Google Scholar
- 2.The Health and Social Care Act 2001. 2000–2001 ed, 2001. ISBN 0105415014.Google Scholar
- 4.Department of Health: Supplementary Prescribing by Nurses, Pharmacists, Chiropodists/Podiatrists, Physiotherapists and Radiographers within the NHS in England: A guide for implementation. London: HMSO, 2005.Google Scholar
- 5.Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain: Outline Curriculum for Training Programmes to prepare Pharmacist Supplementary Prescribers. London, 2002.Google Scholar
- 6.Granby T, Picton C. Maintaining competency in prescribing: an outline framework to help allied health professional supplementary prescribers. Liverpool: National Prescribing Centre, 2004.Google Scholar
- 11.Scottish supplementary prescribers get clinic funds. Pharm J 2005;275:73.Google Scholar
- 12.Child D, Cantrill JA. Hospital doctors’ perceived barriers to pharmacist prescribing. Int J Pharm Pract 1999;7:230–237.Google Scholar
- 15.The Medicines for Human Use (Prescribing) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order. 2006.Google Scholar
- 16.Department of Health: Improving Patients’ Access to Medicines: a Guide to Implementing Nurse and Pharmacist Independent Prescribing within the NHS in England. Leeds, 2006.Google Scholar
- 18.Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain: curriculum for the Education and Training of Pharmacist Supplementary Prescribers to become Independent Prescribers. London, 2006.Google Scholar