A Delphi study to explore and gain consensus regarding the most important barriers and facilitators affecting physiotherapist and pharmacist non-medical prescribing

Abstract

Non-medical prescribing was introduced into the United Kingdom to improve patient care, but early research indicated a third of Allied Health Professionals may not use their prescribing qualification. A previous literature review, highlighting factors influencing prescribing, identified only papers with nursing and pharmacy participants. This investigation explored consensus on factors affecting physiotherapist and pharmacist non-medical prescribers. A three round Delphi study was conducted with pharmacist and physiotherapist prescribers. Round One comprised information gathering on facilitators and barriers to prescribing participants had experienced, and underwent content analysis. This was followed by two sequential consensus seeking rounds with participants asked to rate the importance of statements to themselves. Consensus criteria were determined a priori, including median, interquartile range, percentage agreement and Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance (W). Statements reaching consensus were ranked for importance in Round Three and analysed to produce top ten ranks for all participants and for each professional group. Participants, recruited October 2018, comprised 24 pharmacists and 18 physiotherapists. In Round One, content analysis of 172 statements regarding prescribing influences revealed 24 themes. 127 statements were included in Round Two for importance rating (barriers = 68, facilitators = 59). After Round Two, 29 statements reached consensus (barriers = 1, facilitators = 28), with no further statements reaching consensus following Round Three. The highest ranked statement in Round Three overall was: “Being able to prescribe to patients is more effective and really useful working [in my area]”. Medical support and improved patient care factors appeared the most important. Differences were noted between physiotherapist and pharmacist prescribers regarding the top ten ranked statements, for example team working which pharmacists ranked higher than physiotherapists. Differences may be explained by the variety of practice areas and relative newness of physiotherapy prescribing. Barriers appear to be post or person specific, whereas facilitators appear universal.

Expert perspectives on the introduction of Triple Artemisinin-based Combination Therapies (TACTs) in Southeast Asia: a Delphi study

“…We followed-up with non-respondents and conducted both rounds of data collection shortly after each other. This resulted in a relative low attrition of 19% between the two rounds [ 25 , 31 ]. Anonymity was granted throughout the data collection process to encourage creativity and to promote inclusive views.…”

“…Anonymity is an essential feature to avoid conformity and social pressure [ 24 ]. The Delphi technique has become a well-established tool in (global) health research [ 19 , 25 – 28 ]. Mulligan et al [ 29 ] demonstrated that it is a useful tool for gathering views on research priorities and impact valuations in global health research.…”

“…Similarly, if 70% of the experts rated the statement as ‘somewhat relevant’, ‘slightly relevant’ or ‘not relevant’ consensus was reached that the statement was not-relevant. The 70% cut-off point has proven to be a useful threshold for determining consensus in several Delphi studies using Likert scales [ 25 , 26 , 33 ].…”

Speech pathology prescribing in the outpatient setting: A review of requirements, considerations and barriers

“…Variation in barriers encountered by the two models appears to point to the influence of context (both organizational context and the context of the individual medication) on implementation outcomes. In a recent Delphi study a significant number of initial barrier statements were identified, however only one was able to reach consensus, also supporting the influence of context on perceived implementation barriers (Graham-Clarke et al, 2021).…”

Exploring the barriers and facilitators to non-medical prescribing experienced by pharmacists and physiotherapists, using focus groups

“…A previous systematic review described 15 factors or themes that had the potential to influence the implementation of prescribing by non-medical professions [14]. It was noted that the majority of the included studies focused on prescribing by nurses, with the remainder addressing prescribing by pharmacists.…”