Pharmacist supplementary prescribing training: a study of pharmacists' perceptions and planned participation

Objective The aim of this research was to investigate in a national sample of pharmacists, who have not yet applied for a supplementary prescribing (SP) course, their planned participation in training, and attitudes towards pharmacist SP. Setting Great Britain. Method A postal questionnaire was sent to 4300 pharmacists (approximately 10% of all Great Britain registered pharmacists). The questionnaire had five sections: awareness of SP training; perceptions of aspects of SP training; actions taken relating to SP training based on ‘stage of change’ model; attitudes towards implementing SP into practice; and demographics. Within demographics, respondents were asked to denote themselves as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards, based on receptivity to change. Non-respondents were mailed up to two reminders. Key findings The response rate was 55.1% (2371/4300). Of the 1707 with patient contact but who had not commenced training, almost all (1668, 97.7%) were aware of pharmacist SP. A minority had taken any significant SP training action, with most being at the precontemplation/contemplation stage of change. However, most respondents either strongly agreed/agreed that practising SP would improve patient care, but strongly disagreed/disagreed that they had sufficient pharmacist/technical support. Two-hundred and forty-three (73.0%) of the ‘venturesome’ pharmacists (the innovators) and 291 (79.5%) of the ‘role models’ (the role models) had either never thought about training or had not yet explored training options further. Following logistic regression, predictors of prescribing training actions were: awareness of local networks for SP; receptivity to change; knowledge of colleagues who had undertaken or were currently undertaking SP training; postgraduate qualifications; intrinsic (professional) factors such as professional duty to become a prescriber; and extrinsic (infrastructure) factors such as sufficient IT support. Conclusion We have demonstrated that pharmacists are aware of SP courses and that certain factors are associated with actions relating to prescribing training. However, the practice setting(s) require(s) attention to ensure readiness to support such innovations in areas such as IT and administrative support. These issues have implications for education providers, the NHS and policy makers; and the extension into independent prescribing. Issues based on receptivity to change and models of change require further investigation.