Pharmacists are key professionals in the collaborative working process and are integral members of the healthcare team. However, there is paucity of information regarding their perspectives towards interprofessional education (IPE) and collaborative practice. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise, summarise and evaluate the quality of the quantitative and qualitative literature related to the perspectives of pharmacy students, pharmacy faculty and practising pharmacists toward IPE and collaborative practice. The perspectives included their views, experiences and attitudes with a special focus on their perceived benefits and challenges in relation to IPE and collaborative practice. An integrated mixed method systematic review was conducted. Four electronic databases were searched for articles published in English between 2000 and 2015. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of the studies. Twenty-nine articles were identified meeting the selection criteria from the first initial search of 8512 articles. Seventeen articles (59%) targeted pharmacy students, 11 articles (38%) focused on practising pharmacists and 1 study (3%) was related to pharmacy faculty. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (n = 13), were published in the last five years (83%, n = 24) and employed quantitative methods (52%, n = 15). The two commonly used survey instruments to measure the perspectives were: different versions of the RIPLS (35%, n = 6) and the IEPS scale (35%, n = 6). Fourteen of the 29 studies were rated as low quality (MMAT = 25%), eight studies were rated as average quality (MMAT = 50%), four were rated as high quality (MMAT 75%) and three were rated as very poor quality (MMAT 0%). No studies were rated with 100% MMAT quality. Overall, the findings suggest that pharmacy students, practicing pharmacists and faculty valued interprofessional education and collaborative practice and had positive attitudes towards it. Five main findings have been identified from this review: heterogeneity in reporting IPE research, traditional professional image of the pharmacist, lack of longitudinal follow-up, lack of IPE research on faculty and paucity in mixed method studies in terms of quality and numbers. These findings will provide an opportunity to stakeholders and policy makers to develop and implement IPE activities that are meaningful, comprehensive and unique. Sustained efforts are required not just in undergraduate curricula but also in healthcare settings to improve and promote an interprofessional culture at individual and organisational level.

Background: Pharmacists in Great Britain can undertake supplementary prescribing (SP) after training at a higher education institution and completing a “period of learning in practice” in accordance with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) curriculum. Objective: To explore SP pharmacists' early experiences of prescribing and their perceptions of the prescribing course. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to all RPSGB prescribers (N = 518, on June 1, 2005; 30 used in pilot questionnaire). Predictors of pharmacists starting to practice SP were identified in univariate analysis, and significant variables were further tested in multivariate analysis. Results: The respondents (n = 401; 82.2%) were mainly female (270; 67.3%), had more than 20 years' experience as a pharmacist (123; 30.7%), worked in hospital settings (160; 39.9%), and focused on cardiovascular conditions (143; 35.7%) during their period of learning in practice. The median course satisfaction score, on a scale of 3 to 15 (lowest to highest), was 10. Practicing SP was self-reported by 195 (48.6%) respondents, 154 (79%) of whom had written a prescription. Ninety (58.4%) of the first prescriptions were written in primary care settings. Better patient management was regarded as the major benefit by 139 (71.3%) of those engaged in SP, while funding issues were identified by 71 (36.4%) as major barriers in implementing the practice. Lack of organizational recognition of SP was the main reason given (37; 18%) for those not commencing the practice. Independent predictors of those practicing SP included a longer time since registering as prescriber (p < 0.001); confidence of pharmacists in their prescribing abilities (p < 0.001); practicing in a setting other than community pharmacy (p = 0.001); and training in cardiovascular conditions or multiple conditions during the period of learning in practice (p = 0.005). Conclusions: Pharmacists have made progress in implementing SP, which is perceived by pharmacist prescribers as beneficial for both patients and themselves. Pharmacists need more support in terms of infrastructure and integration into the healthcare team to overcome some of the barriers to implementing SP.