Letters from the Editor

This section features a monthly letter from the editor which invites your comments. Please use the feedback form or register with us to enter the Forum and submit your views.

We welcome your comments about the site.

Read archived Letters from the editor


  • November 2004

The training that nurses and others receive in preparation for prescribing, as well as barriers to the implementation of initiatives extending prescribing, have all been discussed recently.

Are nurses receiving sufficient scientific and clinical preparation for prescribing? One recent survey suggests not (Nurse practitioners not using their prescribing qualifications). A questionnaire was sent to A&E departments, minor injury units and walk-in centres, and one manager comments that it is “near criminal that no pharmacology is taught”: although the application of clinical pharmacology is included, this sort of comment suggest that interpretations differ. The survey also identified reasons why nurse practitioners were not being sent by their units on the extended prescribing course. These included the limitations of the formulary, funding, number of study days and lack of medical supervisors. The published responses to the consultation about extending the formulary (Extending the formulary: responses to consultation) suggest that although the consultation was generally welcomed, a number of professional bodies have concerns about some of the proposals.

Another author argues that there should be a more clinically focussed pre-registration programme that would provide both professional and scientific knowledge (Deficits in nurses’ educational preparation for prescribing). This review identifies deficits in nurses’ training in applied pharmacology and therapeutics, and suggests that the extended and supplementary courses will not be able to fill the gap satisfactorily.

If more pharmacology is added to pre-registration programmes in future, to meet the educational needs of nurse prescribers, and if nurse prescribing expands, does this reflect a move to a more medical model of nursing (Preparing for nurse prescribing in hospitals)? This author concludes that nurses should ensure that prescribing is adopted as a tool allowing nurses to provide holistic, patient-centred care.

The extent of nurses’ pharmacological training and knowledge has been the subject of previous discussion (September Newsletter). Let us know what you think of both the district nurse/health visitor course and the extended and supplementary courses by contributing to our forum. Which aspects did you find most useful and what components would you like to see added?

On supplementary prescribing, MPs in the All Party Parliamentary Group on Skin have also raised the question of lack of training in therapeutics, in a report which expresses concern about the lack of national strategy to train pharmacist supplementary prescribers (MPs call for strategy over clinical areas in supplementary prescribing). The Royal Pharmaceutical Society takes the view that continuing professional development should be used to maintain specialist training.

The limitations of the Nurse Prescribers’ Formulary (NPF) are raised in a study of the views of seven district nurse/health visitor prescribers (Nurse prescribers “predominantly positive” about prescribing). Although the situation has improved since nurse prescribing was first introduced, their practice continues to be restricted unnecessarily. The nurses had mainly positive views of nurse prescribing, citing benefits as time savings, increased convenience and continuity of care, more confidence in the nurse, and improved communication skills. Although they did not see opposition from GPs as an issue, they found support from pharmacists and peers were most important.

There have been some more interesting accounts of how the implementation of supplementary prescribing is working in practice. One pharmacist supplementary prescriber is working in a chemotherapy consent clinic, prescribing chemotherapy (Pharmacist supplementary prescribing for chemotherapy), and others are running or planning to run asthma, smoking cessation, COPD and hypertension clinics (Pharmacist prescribers: current experiences and what the future holds). The issue of access to medical records still appears to present a barrier, and primary care pharmacists are experiencing more difficulties in obtaining funding.

When it was introduced, supplementary prescribing was seen as most suitable for the management of chronic conditions. One interesting account describes the introduction of pharmacist supplementary prescribing in an intensive care unit, and how issues of consent for unconscious or very ill patients were resolved (Pharmacist prescribing in a computerised intensive care unit). The range of settings in which supplementary prescribing is being implemented shows how the framework can be adapted.

Finally, the latest articles in our ‘Focus On’ series look at:

Other recent additions to the site include:


Click here for 2004 archive

Click here for 2003 archive