Search

Introduction: Non-medical prescribing has the potential to deliver innovative healthcare within limited finances. However, uptake has been slow, and a proportion of non-medical prescribers do not use the qualification. This systematic review aimed to describe the facilitators and barriers to non-medical prescribing in the United Kingdom. Methods: The systematic review and thematic analysis included qualitative and mixed methods papers reporting facilitators and barriers to independent non-medical prescribing in the United Kingdom. The following databases were searched to identify relevant papers: AMED, ASSIA, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, Open Grey, Open access theses and dissertations, and Web of Science. Papers published between 2006 and March 2017 were included. Studies were quality assessed using a validated tool (QATSDD), then underwent thematic analysis. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015019786). Results: Of 3991 potentially relevant identified studies, 42 were eligible for inclusion. The studies were generally of moderate quality (83%), and most (71%) were published 2007–2012. The nursing profession dominated the studies (30/42). Thematic analysis identified three overarching themes: non-medical prescriber, human factors, and organisational aspects. Each theme consisted of several sub-themes; the four most highly mentioned were ‘medical professionals’, ‘area of competence’, ‘impact on time’ and ‘service’. Sub-themes were frequently interdependent on each other, having the potential to act as a barrier or facilitator depending on circumstances. Discussion: Addressing the identified themes and subthemes enables strategies to be developed to support and optimise non-medical prescribing. Further research is required to identify if similar themes are encountered by other non-medical prescribing groups than nurses and pharmacists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personhood discourses in dementia care have gained prominence and current care home standards mandate that care should be “person-centred”. However, it is unclear how the personhood of staff is construed within the care relationship. This paper aims to explore how the personhood of paid carers of people with dementia can be understood by focussing on the views and experiences of care home staff. We undertook a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with 25 paid care staff in England, conducted as part of the MARQUE (Managing Agitation and Raising QUality of lifE) study. The authors inductively developed themes around the topic of personhood for staff, contrasting management and care staff perspectives. We found that many care staff are not identified as persons in their own right by their employing institutions, and that there is a general lack of acknowledgment of the moral work of caring that occurs within formal care work. This oversight can reduce the complex relationships of care work to a series of care tasks, challenges care workers’ self-worth and self-efficacy, and impede their efforts to deliver person-centred care. We conclude that care staff status as persons in their own right should be explicitly considered in quality standards and supported by employers’ policies and practices, not simply for their role in preserving the personhood of people with dementia but for their own sense of valued personhood. Enhancing staff personhood may also result in improved care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the opinions of British general practitioners regarding the potential of future technology to replace key tasks carried out in primary care. Design: Cross sectional online survey. Participants: 1,474 registered GPs in the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures: Investigators measured GPs’ opinions about the likelihood that future technology will be able to fully replace–not merely aid–the average GP in performing six primary care tasks; in addition, if GPs considered replacement for a particular task likely, the survey measured opinions about how many years from now this technological capacity might emerge. Results: A total of 720 (49%) responded to the survey. Most GPs believed it unlikely that technology will ever be able to fully replace physicians when it comes to diagnosing patients (489, 68%), referring patients to other specialists (444, 61%), formulating personalized treatment plans (441, 61%), and delivering empathic care (680, 94%). GPs were not in agreement about prognostics: one in two participants (380, 53%) considered it likely that technology will be fully capable of replacing physicians in performing this task, nearly half (187, 49%) of whom believed that the technological capacity will arise in the next ten years. Against these findings, the majority of GPs (578, 80%) believed it likely that future technology will be able to fully replace humans to undertake documentation; among them 261 (79%) estimated that the technological wherewithal would emerge during the next ten years. In general, age and gender were not correlated with opinions; nor was reported burnout and job satisfaction or whether GPs worked full time or part time. Conclusions: The majority of UK GPs in this survey were skeptical about the potential for future technology to perform most primary care tasks as well as or better than humans. However, respondents were optimistic that in the near future technology would have the capacity to fully replace GPs’ in undertaking administrative duties related to patient documentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]