File
Noblet T1,2,3, Marriott J1, Jones T3, Dean C3, Rushton A1
1University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 2St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom, 3Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Background: Non-medical prescribing (NMP) is acknowledged as an expanding area of clinical practice across the world. The physiotherapy profession is currently investigating the introduction of physiotherapist prescribing in Australia, with the case for reform centred around meeting the healthcare needs of the current and future Australian population. An online survey was developed with the aim to collect and synthesise the views and perceptions of Australian physiotherapists about the potential use of physiotherapist prescribing in Australia.
Purpose: To explore
(1) the views of Australian physiotherapists regarding potential implementation of non-medical prescribing,
(2) how the geographical location and health sector in which a clinician works may influence their perceptions,
(3) the perceptions of Australian physiotherapists about how physiotherapist prescribing might impact the care that the profession can provide.
Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive survey using open and closed questions was developed by a panel of subject experts and pre-tested (n=10) for internal consistency. A hyperlink to the questionnaire was emailed to all members of the Australian Physiotherapy Association. A reminder email was sent 4 weeks later. 883 Australian Health Professionals Registration Authority (AHPRA)registered-physiotherapists, working across all states and territories completed the questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively using absolute risk reductions (ARR) and 95% Confidence Intervals to determine the likelihood that health sector or geographical location were associated with specific views. Thematic analysis enabled synthesis of the qualitative data.
Results: 79.0% participants felt that physiotherapist prescribing should be introduced in Australia, with 71.2% wanting to train as prescribers. Clinical governance, risk management, regulation of clinicians and the development of an education framework were identified as priorities for implementation. Participants working in the private sector were significantly more likely to train as prescribers than those in the public sector (ARR 9.9%; 95%CI [3.5, 16.4]) or educational/research institutions (ARR 23.3%; 95%CI [12.8, 33.8]), with city dwellers significantly more likely to train compared to physiotherapists in remote regions (ARR 19.8%; 95%CI [0.8, 39.2]). Physiotherapist prescribing was predicted to improveefficiency of healthcare delivery, access to medicines and reductions in healthcare costs.
Conclusion(s): AHPRA registered-physiotherapists perceive that physiotherapist prescribing would be beneficial for the Australian population and should be introduced. Decision-makers should consider the results of this survey in conjunction with cost-benefit and risk analysis when planning the introduction of physiotherapist prescribing.
Implications: Politicians, policy and healthcare managers, and clinical professionals internationally may use the evidence from this review when considering the introduction or use of physiotherapy prescribing in the future.
Keywords: Non-medical prescribing, Physiotherapists, Perceptions
Funding acknowledgements: None
Purpose: To explore
(1) the views of Australian physiotherapists regarding potential implementation of non-medical prescribing,
(2) how the geographical location and health sector in which a clinician works may influence their perceptions,
(3) the perceptions of Australian physiotherapists about how physiotherapist prescribing might impact the care that the profession can provide.
Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive survey using open and closed questions was developed by a panel of subject experts and pre-tested (n=10) for internal consistency. A hyperlink to the questionnaire was emailed to all members of the Australian Physiotherapy Association. A reminder email was sent 4 weeks later. 883 Australian Health Professionals Registration Authority (AHPRA)registered-physiotherapists, working across all states and territories completed the questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively using absolute risk reductions (ARR) and 95% Confidence Intervals to determine the likelihood that health sector or geographical location were associated with specific views. Thematic analysis enabled synthesis of the qualitative data.
Results: 79.0% participants felt that physiotherapist prescribing should be introduced in Australia, with 71.2% wanting to train as prescribers. Clinical governance, risk management, regulation of clinicians and the development of an education framework were identified as priorities for implementation. Participants working in the private sector were significantly more likely to train as prescribers than those in the public sector (ARR 9.9%; 95%CI [3.5, 16.4]) or educational/research institutions (ARR 23.3%; 95%CI [12.8, 33.8]), with city dwellers significantly more likely to train compared to physiotherapists in remote regions (ARR 19.8%; 95%CI [0.8, 39.2]). Physiotherapist prescribing was predicted to improveefficiency of healthcare delivery, access to medicines and reductions in healthcare costs.
Conclusion(s): AHPRA registered-physiotherapists perceive that physiotherapist prescribing would be beneficial for the Australian population and should be introduced. Decision-makers should consider the results of this survey in conjunction with cost-benefit and risk analysis when planning the introduction of physiotherapist prescribing.
Implications: Politicians, policy and healthcare managers, and clinical professionals internationally may use the evidence from this review when considering the introduction or use of physiotherapy prescribing in the future.
Keywords: Non-medical prescribing, Physiotherapists, Perceptions
Funding acknowledgements: None
Topic: Professional issues; Globalisation: health systems, policies & strategies; Professional issues: business skills, leadership & advocacy
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: Macquarie University, Australia
Ethics committee: The Medical Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC)
Ethics number: 5201600846
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
