Judith Edwards

Paramedic practice is evolving and the number of advanced paramedics in primary care roles in the UK has risen dramatically. A significant milestone for the paramedic profession, recent legislation granting paramedics independent prescribing rights means UK paramedics are the first worldwide to receive this extension in scope of practice. Paramedic prescribing capability is expected to increase autonomy for independent case management and enhance capacity for service development. Local and national success is however likely to depend on skilful implementation and the avoidance of historical barriers. This article aims to raise awareness of potential barriers to early adoption of paramedic independent prescribing in primary care. It identifies common pitfalls prior to training and provides seven practical steps for paramedics considering pursuing non-medical prescribing training.

Background: Increasing numbers of nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals across the world have prescribing rights for medicines: over 90,000 of the eligible United Kingdom workforce are qualified as non-doctor prescribers. In order to inform future developments, it is important to understand the benefits and impact of prescribing by allied health professionals including physiotherapists and podiatrists.

Abstract Background Increasing numbers of nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals across the world have prescribing rights: over 90,000 of the eligible United Kingdom workforce are qualified as non-doctor prescribers. In order to inform future developments, it is important to understand the benefits and impact of prescribing by allied health professionals including physiotherapists and podiatrists. Aim: to compare outcomes of Physiotherapist and Podiatrist Independent Prescriber (PP-IP) patients with those of Physiotherapist and Podiatrist non-prescribers (PP-NPs). Outcome measures included patient satisfaction, ease of access to services, quality of life and cost implications. Design: a quasi-experimental, post-test control group design Methods: Using mixed methods outcomes were compared between 7 sites where care was provided from a PP-IP (3 podiatrist and 4 physiotherapist IPs) and 7 sites from a PP-NP (3 podiatrist and 4 physiotherapist NPs). Patients were followed up for 2 months (2015-2016). Results: 489 patients were recruited: n=243 IP sites, and n=246 NP sites. Independent prescribing was found to be highly acceptable, and equivalent in terms of quality of life (p>0.05) and patient satisfaction (p≤0.05) compared to care provided by NPs. PP-IP care delivery was found to be more resource intensive than NP-PP, with longer consultation duration for IPs (around 6.5 mins), and a higher proportion of physiotherapy patients discussed with medical colleagues (around 9.5 minutes). Conclusion This study provides new knowledge that PP-IPs provide high levels of care. PP-IP care delivery was found to be more resource intensive. Further research is required to explore cost effectiveness. A more focussed exploration within each profession using targeted outcome measures would enable a more robust comparison, inform future developments around the world and help ensure non-doctor prescribing is recognised as an effective way to alleviate shortfalls in the global workforce.