Objective: To review the research literature to date on pharmacist prescribing in the United Kingdom (UK) and to explore the main areas of care and practice settings including any benefits and limitations. Findings: There are two models of pharmacist prescribing in the UK: pharma\cist supplementary prescribing (SP) introduced in 2003, involving a voluntary partnership between the responsible independent prescriber (a physician or a dentist), the supplementary prescriber and the patient, to implement an agreed patient‐specific clinical management plan; and pharmacist independent prescribing (IP) introduced in 2006, responsible for the assessment and consequent management, including prescribing of both undiagnosed and diagnosed conditions. There have been narrative reports of pharmacist SP in different health care settings including primary care, community pharmacies, secondary care and at the primary/secondary care interface; published research within these areas of care is conflicting as to which setting is more suitable for pharmacist prescribing. Initial research reports that almost 50% of pharmacist supplementary prescribers self‐reported prescribing with both benefits of and barriers to implementing SP. Research involving other healthcare professionals has indicated that encroachment of traditional roles is likely to occur because of the advent of pharmacist prescribing. A small‐scale study has concluded that patients are likely to accept pharmacist prescribing favourably, with another study showing pharmacist prescribing leading to improved adherence to guidelines. There is no published research yet available about practices involving pharmacist IP. Discussion: Most of the literature focuses on pharmacists’ perceptions of SP, with little information referring to other stakeholders, including patients. There is also limited published research focusing on clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacist SP. Conclusion: This is a rapidly changing aspect of pharmacy practice in the UK, particularly with the more recent introduction of pharmacist IP. It is likely that this area of research will expand rapidly over the coming years.

Though medication reviews have shown positive patient outcomes, they are still not widely implemented in community pharmacies. Published reviews on their implementation often include several other pharmacy services, making them non-specific. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to focus solely on the experiences of different stakeholders with the implementation of medication reviews will help to better understand relevant facilitators and barriers. To critically appraise, synthesise and present the available evidence on experiences of key stakeholders with the implementation of medication reviews and to identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation in community pharmacies. A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases for studies published in English, Spanish or German. Key search terms included: implementation, pharmac*, medication review, facilitator, barrier. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Findings were mapped directly against the constructs of the CFIR. Out of 924 retrieved records 24 articles from 9 countries met the inclusion criteria. Key facilitators identified included pharmacists' openness to practice change and a high degree of patient satisfaction post medication review. Attracting patients to the service was stated as challenging due to an unawareness of the scope and potential benefit of a medication review. The dominant barrier was inadequate remuneration, as it impacted all additional resourcing and ultimately the viability of the service. Further barriers included difficult professional relationships with doctors and little mandate from health authorities. Most reports were from the employed pharmacists' perspective and concerned the inner setting, other perspectives were under-reported. Results of this systematic review illustrate different stakeholders' experiences and add to the understanding of challenges in the implementation process. Nevertheless, findings also highlight how scarce reporting of external stakeholders' views is and that filling this gap can unveil hidden barriers and facilitators. PROSPERO register (CRD 42019122836).

Purpose Effective and efficient medication reporting processes are essential in promoting patient safety. Few qualitative studies have explored reporting of medication errors by health professionals, and none have made reference to behavioural theories. The objective was to describe and understand the behavioural determinants of health professional reporting of medication errors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Methods This was a qualitative study comprising face-to-face, semi-structured interviews within three major medical/surgical hospitals of Abu Dhabi, the UAE. Health professionals were sampled purposively in strata of profession and years of experience. The semi-structured interview schedule focused on behavioural determinants around medication error reporting, facilitators, barriers and experiences. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF; a framework of theories of behaviour change) was used as a coding framework. Ethical approval was obtained from a UK university and all participating hospital ethics committees. Results Data saturation was achieved after interviewing ten nurses, ten pharmacists and nine physicians. Whilst it appeared that patient safety and organisational improvement goals and intentions were behavioural determinants which facilitated reporting, there were key determinants which deterred reporting. These included the beliefs of the consequences of reporting (lack of any feedback following reporting and impacting professional reputation, relationships and career progression), emotions (fear and worry) and issues related to the environmental context (time taken to report). Conclusion These key behavioural determinants which negatively impact error reporting can facilitate the development of an intervention, centring on organisational safety and reporting culture, to enhance reporting effectiveness and efficiency.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia is an infection associated with a high mortality rate. Piperacillin-tazobactam is a β-lactam–β-lactamase inhibitor combination that is frequently used for the management of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic index associated with in vitro maximal bacterial killing for piperacillin-tazobactam is the percentage of the time between doses at which the free fraction concentration remains above the MIC (% fT _>MIC ).

Objectives This study aimed to use a theoretical approach to understand the determinants of behaviour in patients not home self-administering intravenous antibiotics. Setting Outpatient care: included patients were attending an outpatient clinic for intravenous antibiotic administration in the northeast of Scotland. Participants Patients were included if they had received more than 7 days of intravenous antibiotics and were aged 16 years and over. Twenty potential participants were approached, and all agreed to be interviewed. 13 were male with a mean age of 54 years (SD +17.6). Outcomes Key behavioural determinants that influenced patients’ behaviours relating to self-administration of intravenous antibiotics. Design Qualitative, semistructured in-depth interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of patients. An interview schedule, underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), was developed, reviewed for credibility and piloted. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed thematically using the TDF as the coding framework. Results The key behavioural determinants emerging as encouraging patients to self-administer intravenous antibiotics were the perceptions of being sufficiently knowledgeable, skilful and competent and that self-administration afforded the potential to work while administering treatment. The key determinants that impacted their decision not to self-administer were lack of knowledge of available options, a perception that hospital staff are better trained and anxieties of potential complications. Conclusion Though patients are appreciative of the skills and knowledge of hospital staff, there is also a willingness among patients to home self-administer antibiotics. However, the main barrier emerges to be a perceived lack of knowledge of ways of doing this at home. To overcome this, a number of interventions are suggested based on evidence-based behavioural change techniques.