Abstract
Abstract
Background
An expanding body of literature shows that pharmacists’ interventions improve health outcomes and are cost-saving. However, diverse state regulations of pharmacists’ scope of practice create a discrepancy between what pharmacists are trained to do and what they legally can do. This study investigated how stakeholders utilized research evidence when developing expanded scope of practice policies in their respective states.
Methods
Using autonomous pharmacist prescriptive authority as a surrogate for general pharmacist scope of practice, a general policy document analysis was performed to understand the scope of practice landscape for pharmacists across the United States. Next, semi-structured interviews with policy-makers and pharmacy advocates were conducted to explore how the identified states in the policy document analysis utilized evidence during the policy-making process. Investigators analysed findings from the transcribed interviews through application of the SPIRIT Action Framework. Resulting codes were summarized across themes, and recommendations to researchers about increasing utilization of research evidence were crafted.
Results
Sixteen states with 27 autonomous pharmacist prescriptive authority policies were identified. Public health need and safety considerations motivated evidence engagement, while key considerations dictating utilization of research included perceptions of research, access to resources and experts, and the successful implementation of similar policy. Research evidence helped to advocate for and set terms for pharmacist prescribing. Barriers to research utilization include stakeholder opposition to pharmacist prescribing, inability to interpret research, and a lack of relevant evidence. Recommendations for researchers include investigating specific metrics to evaluate scope of practice policy, developing relationships between policy-makers and researchers, and leveraging pharmacy practice stakeholders.
Conclusions
Overall, alignment of researcher goals and legislative priorities, coupled with timely communication, may help to increase research evidence engagement in pharmacist scope of practice policy. By addressing these factors regarding research engagement identified in this study, researchers can increase evidence-based scope of practice, which can help to improve patient outcomes, contain costs, and provide pharmacists with the legal infrastructure to practise at the top of their license.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference83 articles.
1. Dower C, Moore J, Langelier M. Analysis & commentary: it is time to restructure health professions scope-of-practice regulations to remove barriers to care. Health Aff. 2013;32(11):1971–6.
2. Providers C, Reduce C, Disparities GH, Industry P, Reading C, Healthcare H, et al. How Healthcare Reform Is Impacting Primary [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Jul 16]. Available from: https://www.ajmc.com/contributor/sophia-bernazzani/2016/03/how-healthcare-reform-is-impacting-primary-care.
3. Kirch DG, Petelle K. Addressing the physician shortage: the peril of ignoring demography [Internet]. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2017;317:1947–8.
4. of American Medical Colleges A. The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2018 to 2033. 2020.
5. Are There Enough Doctors For The Newly Insured? | Kaiser Health News [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jul 16]. Available from: https://khn.org/news/doctor-shortage-primary-care-specialist/.
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献