Background: In 2007, Alberta became the first Canadian jurisdiction to grant pharmacists a wide range of prescribing privileges. Our objective was to understand what factors influence pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing using a model for the Diffusion of Innovations in healthcare services. Methods: Pharmacists participated in semi-structured telephone interviews to discuss their prescribing practices and explore the facilitators and barriers to implementation. Pharmacists working in community, hospital, PCN, or other settings were selected using a mix of random and purposive sampling. Two investigators independently analyzed each transcript using an Interpretive Description approach to identify themes. Analyses were informed by a model explaining the Diffusion of Innovations in health service organizations. Results: Thirty-eight participants were interviewed. Prescribing behaviours varied from non-adoption through to product, disease, and patient focused use of prescribing. Pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing was dependent on the innovation itself, adopter, system readiness, and communication and influence. Adopting pharmacists viewed prescribing as a legitimization of previous practice and advantageous to instrumental daily tasks. The complexity of knowledge required for prescribing increased respectively in product, disease and patient focused prescribing scenarios. Individual adopters had higher levels of self-efficacy toward prescribing skills. At a system level, pharmacists who were in practice settings that were patient focused were more likely to adopt advanced prescribing practices, over those in product-focused settings. All pharmacists stated that physician relationships impacted their prescribing behaviours and individual pharmacists’ decisions to apply for independent prescribing privileges. Conclusions: Diffusion of Innovations theory was helpful in understanding the multifaceted nature of pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing. The characteristics of the prescribing model itself which legitimized prior practices, the model of practice in a pharmacy setting, and relationships with physicians were prominent influences on pharmacists’ prescribing behaviours.

OBJECTIVE—Despite good evidence and clinical practice guidelines, studies document that treatment of type 2 diabetes is less than optimal. Lack of resources or limited access may put patients in rural communities at particular risk for suboptimal care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We conducted a prospective, before/after study with concurrent controls to assess the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary diabetes outreach service (intervention) for improving the quality of care for rural patients with type 2 diabetes. Our intervention consisted of six monthly visits by a traveling team of specialist physicians, nurses, dieticians, and a pharmacist. The core of this service was specialist-to-rural primary care physician academic group detailing. Two comparable regions in Northern Alberta were randomly allocated to control or intervention. Data were collected before and 6 months after intervention in a representative volunteer sample. The primary outcome was a 10% improvement in any one of the following: blood pressure, total cholesterol, or HbA_1c. RESULTS—Our analysis included 200 intervention and 179 control subjects; 14 subjects were at all three primary outcome targets at baseline. The intervention was associated with a trend toward improvement in primary outcome at 6 months (44% intervention vs. 37% control; odds ratio 1.32, 95% CI 0.87–1.99). The intervention was associated with a significant improvement in blood pressure (42% intervention vs. 25% control, P = 0.004); however, there were only small, nonsignificant changes in cholesterol or HbA_1c. The intervention was associated with a significant increase in satisfaction with diabetes care. Multivariate adjustment for baseline differences between intervention and control subjects did not affect any of the main results. CONCLUSIONS—A diabetes outreach service has the potential to improve the quality of diabetes care for rural patients. Future studies need to involve longer timelines and larger sample sizes.