A range of health workforce strategies are needed to address health service demands in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Non-medical prescribing involves nurses, pharmacists, allied health professionals, and physician assistants substituting for doctors in a prescribing role, and this is one approach to improve access to medicines. To assess clinical, patient-reported, and resource use outcomes of non-medical prescribing for managing acute and chronic health conditions in primary and secondary care settings compared with medical prescribing (usual care). We searched databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases on 19 July 2016. We also searched the grey literature and handsearched bibliographies of relevant papers and publications. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies (with at least two intervention and two control sites) and interrupted time series analysis (with at least three observations before and after the intervention) comparing: 1. non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing in acute care; 2. non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing in chronic care; 3. non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing in secondary care; 4 non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing in primary care; 5. comparisons between different non-medical prescriber groups; and 6. non-medical healthcare providers with formal prescribing training versus those without formal prescribing training. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently reviewed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed study quality with discrepancies resolved by discussion. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies according to EPOC criteria. We undertook meta-analyses using the fixed-effect model where studies were examining the same treatment effect and to account for small sample sizes. We compared outcomes to a random-effects model where clinical or statistical heterogeneity existed. We included 46 studies (37,337 participants); non-medical prescribing was undertaken by nurses in 26 studies and pharmacists in 20 studies. In 45 studies non-medical prescribing as a component of care was compared with usual care medical prescribing. A further study compared nurse prescribing supported by guidelines with usual nurse prescribing care. No studies were found with non-medical prescribing being undertaken by other health professionals. The education requirement for non-medical prescribing varied with country and location. A meta-analysis of surrogate markers of chronic disease (systolic blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin, and low-density lipoprotein) showed positive intervention group effects. There was a moderate-certainty of evidence for studies of blood pressure at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -5.31 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.46 to -4.16; 12 studies, 4229 participants) and low-density lipoprotein (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.14; 7 studies, 1469 participants); we downgraded the certainty of evidence from high due to considerations of serious inconsistency (considerable heterogeneity), multifaceted interventions, and variable prescribing autonomy. A high-certainty of evidence existed for comparative studies of glycated haemoglobin management at 12 months (MD -0.62, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.38; 6 studies, 775 participants). While there appeared little difference in medication adherence across studies, a meta-analysis of continuous outcome data from four studies showed an effect favouring patient adherence in the non-medical prescribing group (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; 4 studies, 700 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for adherence to moderate due to the serious risk of performance bias. While little difference was seen in patient-related adverse events between treatment groups, we downgraded the certainty of evidence to low due to indirectness, as the range of adverse events may not be related to the intervention and selective reporting failed to adequately report adverse events in many studies. Patients were generally satisfied with non-medical prescriber care (14 studies, 7514 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence from high to moderate due to indirectness, in that satisfaction with the prescribing component of care was only addressed in one study, and there was variability of satisfaction measures with little use of validated tools. A meta-analysis of health-related quality of life scores (SF-12 and SF-36) found a difference favouring usual care for the physical component score (MD 1.17, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.17), but not the mental component score (MD 0.58, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.55). However, the quality of life measurement may more appropriately reflect composite care rather than the prescribing component of care, and for this reason we downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate due to indirectness of the measure of effect. A wide variety of resource use measures were reported across studies with little difference between groups for hospitalisations, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits. In the majority of studies reporting medication use, non-medical prescribers prescribed more drugs, intensified drug doses, and used a greater variety of drugs compared to usual care medical prescribers. The risk of bias across studies was generally low for selection bias (random sequence generation), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), and reporting bias (selective reporting). There was an unclear risk of selection bias (allocation concealment) and for other biases. A high risk of performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) existed. The findings suggest that non-medical prescribers, practising with varying but high levels of prescribing autonomy, in a range of settings, were as effective as usual care medical...

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.

Aims: The aims of this systematic review were to: (1) critically appraise, synthesize and present the available evidence on the views and experiences of stakeholders on pharmacist prescribing and; (2) present the perceived facilitators and barriers for its global implementation.Methods: Medline, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsychArticles and Google Scholar databases were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. A narrative approach to data synthesis was undertaken due to heterogeneity, the nature of study types and outcome measures.Results: Sixty‐five studies were identified, mostly from the UK (n = 34), followed by Australia (n = 13), Canada (n = 6) and USA (n = 5). Twenty‐seven studies reported pharmacists' perspectives, with fewer studies focusing on patients' (n = 12), doctors' (n = 6), the general public's (n = 4), nurses' (n = 1), policymakers' (n = 1) and multiple stakeholders' (n = 14) perspectives. Most reported positive experiences and views, regardless of stage of implementation. The main benefits described were: ease of patient access to healthcare services, improved patient outcomes, better use of pharmacists' skills and knowledge, improved pharmacist job satisfaction, and reduced physician workload. Any lack of support for pharmacist prescribing was largely in relation to: accountability for prescribing, limited pharmacist diagnosis skills, lack of access to patient clinical records, and issues concerning organizational and financial support.Conclusion: There is an accumulation of global evidence of the positive views and experiences of diverse stakeholder groups and their perceptions of facilitators and barriers to pharmacist prescribing. There are, however, organizational issues to be tackled which may otherwise impede the implementation and sustainability of pharmacist prescribing.

Inappropriate use of multiple medicines (inappropriate polypharmacy) is a major challenge in older people with consequences of increased prevalence and severity of adverse drug reactions and interactions, and reduced medicines adherence. The aim of this study was to determine the levels of consensus amongst key stakeholders in the European Union (EU) in relation to aspects of the management of polypharmacy in older people. Forty-six statements were developed on aspects of healthcare structures, processes and desired outcomes, with consensus defined at ≥ 80% agreement. Panel members were strategists (e.g. directors, leading clinicians and commissioners) from each of the 28 EU member states, with a target recruitment of five per member state. Three Delphi rounds were conducted via email, with panel members being provided with summative results and collated, anonymised comments at the commencement of Rounds 2 and 3. Ninety panel members were recruited (64.3% of target), with high participation levels throughout the three Delphi rounds (91.1%, 83.3%, 72.2%). During Round 1, consensus was obtained for 27/46 statements (58.7%), with an additional two statements in Round 2 and none in Round 3. Consensus was obtained for statements relating to: potential gain arising from polypharmacy management (3/4 statements); strategic development (7/7); change management (5/7) indicator measures (4/6); legislation (0/3); awareness raising (5/5); polypharmacy reviews (5/7); and EU vision (0/7). Analysis of free text comments indicated that the vision statements were too ambitious and not achievable by the specified timeframe of 2025. Consensus was obtained amongst key EU strategists around many aspects of polypharmacy management in older people. Notably, no consensus was achieved in relation to statements relating to the need to alter legislation in areas of healthcare delivery, remuneration and practitioner scope of practice. While the vision for the EU by 2025 was considered rather ambitious, there is great potential and clear opportunity to advance polypharmacy management throughout the EU and beyond.

Introduction: Single disease state led evidence-based guidelines do not provide sufficient coverage of issues of multimorbidities, with the cumulative impact of recommendations often resulting in overwhelming medicines burden. Inappropriate polypharmacy increases the likelihood of adverse drug events, drug interactions and non-adherence. Areas covered: A detailed description of a pan-European initiative, ‘Stimulating Innovation Management of Polypharmacy and Adherence in the Elderly, SIMPATHY’, which is a project funded by the European Commission to support innovation across the European Union. This includes a systematic review of the literature aiming to summarize and review critically current policies and guidelines on polypharmacy management in older people. The policy driven, evidence-based approach to managing inappropriate polypharmacy in Scotland is described, with consideration of a change management strategy based on Kotter’s eight step process for leading sustainable change. Expert opinion: The challenges around promoting appropriate polypharmacy are on many levels, primarily clinical, organisational and political, all of which any workable solution will need to address. To be effective, safe and efficient, any programme that attempts to deal with the complexities of prescribing in this population must be patient-centred, clinically robust, multidisciplinary and designed to fit into the healthcare system in which it is delivered.