Nurse prescribing for mental health nurses: scripting the issues

Mental health nurse independent prescribing: what are nurse prescribers' views of the barriers to implementation?

This paper reports a pilot study exploring mental health nurse prescribers' perceptions of barriers to prescribing independently but also includes perceptions of barriers to supplementary prescribing. Current prescribing practice as experienced by mental health nurses suggests a need to identify and highlight these barriers. A mixed methodology explanatory sequential study was carried out over 3 months in Scotland in 2008 as part of a Master's degree. A questionnaire was completed by 33 mental health nurse prescribers. A focus group was conducted with 12 mental health nurse prescribers. Participants' views exposed a number of barriers to prescribing previously unidentified in a review of the relevant literature, and concurred with some previously documented barriers. Sixty per cent of mental health nurse prescribers in the study were not prescribing. Barriers identified in the study included concern about how prescribing impacts on the therapeutic relationship, role conflict, lack of support, inappropriateness of prescriber training, remuneration, qualifying to prescribing time, supervision, prescribing policies, clinical governance and nurse management. Nurse prescribing involves increased accountability and responsibility which is not currently recognized in job status or pay banding. Mental health nurse prescribing has the potential to enhance service provision, but until barriers to prescribing have been identified and addressed as part of the process of organizational change, nurse prescribing cannot achieve its maximum potential.

Non-medical prescribing: audit, practice and views

Non-medical prescribing is increasingly utilized in clinical care and UK Standards have been produced for this. This study was undertaken to investigate compliance with these standards which were adopted by one mental health service and to review whether any changes were necessary to existing arrangements monitoring this compliance. A questionnaire was distributed to all 24 non-medical prescribers from one UK Mental Health Trust. Participants were asked to respond to questions about demographic data and prescribing practices. We also asked them to rate their experience on a 5-point scale. In all, 83% of non-medical prescribers responded. The UK Standards were met even though there was a shortfall in the uptake of training and supervision. Non-medical prescribers from the Community Drug Team and Older People's Service prescribed a narrow range of speciality drugs than any other category of drugs, but prescribed more often. UK Standards were met by the majority of non-medical prescribers. However, concerns were noted about a shortfall in training, supervision and experience of some non-medical prescribers. Conflict with psychiatrists was reported but their availability for support when necessary was valued. Non-medical prescribers believed that their input with non-medical prescribing had benefited patients.

A comparison of the clinical effectiveness and costs of mental health nurse supplementary prescribing and independent medical prescribing: a post-test control group study

BACKGROUND

Supplementary prescribing for mental health nurses was first introduced in the UK in 2003. Since then, a number of studies have reported stakeholders' perceptions of the success of the initiative. However, there has been little experimental research conducted into its effectiveness. This paper reports findings from the first known study to compare the cost and clinical impact of mental health nurse supplementary prescribing to independent medical prescribing.

METHODS

A post-test control group experimental design was used to compare the treatment costs, clinical outcomes and satisfaction of patients in receipt of mental health nurse supplementary prescribing with a matched group of patients in receipt of independent prescribing from consultant psychiatrists. The sample comprised 45 patients in receipt of mental health nurse supplementary prescribing for a minimum of six months and a matched group (by age, gender, diagnosis, and chronicity) of patients prescribed for by psychiatrists.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between patients in the nurse supplementary prescribers' group and the independent prescribers' group in terms of medication adherence, health status, side effects, and satisfaction with overall care. Total costs per patient for service use were 803 pounds higher for the nurse prescribers' group but this difference was not significant (95% confidence interval--1341 pounds to 3020 pounds).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were found between the health and social outcomes of patients in the mental health nurse supplementary prescribers' group, and those prescribed for by the independent medical prescribers. The cost appraisal also showed that there was no significant difference in the costs of the two types of prescribing, although the pattern of resources used differed between patients in the two prescriber groups. The results suggest that mental health nurse supplementary prescribers can deliver similar health benefits to patients as consultant psychiatrists without any significant difference in patients' service utilisation costs.

Mental health nurse prescribing in New Zealand and the United kingdom: comparing the pathways

PURPOSE

Prescriptive authority in the area of mental health care is significantly different between New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Exploring the educational preparation and context differences aids understanding of the present dearth of mental health nurse prescribers in New Zealand.

CONCLUSIONS

The barriers experienced in implementation and extension of prescribing rights have been similar in both countries.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Until roles change, registered nurses in New Zealand may be reluctant to undertake the challenging and demanding step to gain prescribing rights. The potential for nurses to make a difference in the lives of people with mental illness in New Zealand is therefore constrained.

Use of self-chosen therapies by depressed people in primary care

AIMS

This paper focuses on attitudes towards and use of self-chosen treatment among people prescribed antidepressants and discusses the implications for practitioners involved in medicines management.

BACKGROUND

In the wide-ranging debate around the extension of non-medical prescribing in the UK the relationship between complementary and alternative therapies and prescribed medication has received little attention. Research indicates that self-treatment, including use of complementary and alternative therapies is burgeoning, yet there is uncertainty about the degree to which practitioners should be knowledgeable about therapies or be capable of advising clients on their use. Complementary and alternative therapy use is common among people with depression and greater knowledge of their use may be appropriate if health practitioners are to be able to support and inform people with depressive symptoms.

METHODS

Qualitative methodology was adopted and 60 people from four primary care practices in the West Midlands, UK were interviewed individually and their self-reported treatment journeys documented.

RESULTS

Almost two-thirds of participants had attempted to use self-chosen therapies during their recent illness though few had discussed their use with health service practitioners. Use of a range of self-chosen therapies was supported by a belief that they were natural, combined with a desire to avoid consulting health practitioners. Reasons for non-use of such therapies included confidence in health practitioners and caution about the possibility of drug interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Health practitioners require an awareness that people with mental health problems are using a range of self-chosen treatments and might consider the appropriateness of initiating discussions on self-chosen treatments with clients. This area requires greater debate and if necessary identification of an appropriate knowledge base.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Assessment of common mental health problems should include discussion of patients' previous and current self-treatment. Such discussions will assist in identifying attitudes and beliefs towards health service treatment and provide a basis for selecting appropriate interventions.

Mental health nurse prescribing: issues for the UK

Supplementary nurse prescribing holds the key to rapid developments in psychiatric nursing and the care received by patients. In this paper, the origins, context and research data on nurse prescribing are reviewed, as a backdrop to a discussion on potential application of supplementary prescribing in a number of mental health settings. We describe a number of practice settings where nurse prescribing could be implemented, and argue that given service changes and informative educational preparation, access to care and user experience of that care will be enhanced. We conclude the paper by reviewing a number of clinical, organizational and research factors important for the success of nurse prescribing.

Nurse prescribing: a case for clinical supervision

This article will discuss the implications of nurse prescribing in mainstream primary health care and its impact on the fields of mental health and learning disabilities. Complexities and issues which require serious consideration by those nurses wishing to pursue such a specialist and extended role will be discussed in relation to these practice areas. Titchen's (1998) critical companionship model will be illustrated as an example of one framework for clinical supervision. This is to allow the processes, competencies and contextual issues to be explored by both novice and expert prescribers. The article concludes that for safe, effective and competency-based practice, clinical supervision also assists in mediating the professional and political aspirations in support of supplementary nurse prescribing.