Epilepsy specialist nurse prescribing practice in the United Kingdom: A national questionnaire survey

Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review

BACKGROUND

Health practitioner regulation (HPR) systems are increasingly recognized as playing an important role in supporting health workforce availability, accessibility, quality, and sustainability, while promoting patient safety. This review aimed to identify evidence on the design, delivery and effectiveness of HPR to inform policy decisions.

METHODS

We conducted an integrative analysis of literature published between 2010 and 2021. Fourteen databases were systematically searched, with data extracted and synthesized based on a modified Donabedian framework.

FINDINGS

This large-scale review synthesized evidence from a range of academic (n = 410) and grey literature (n = 426) relevant to HPR. We identified key themes and findings for a series of HPR topics organized according to our structures-processes-outcomes conceptual framework. Governance reforms in HPR are shifting towards multi-profession regulators, enhanced accountability, and risk-based approaches; however, comparisons between HPR models were complicated by a lack of a standardized HPR typology. HPR can support government workforce strategies, despite persisting challenges in cross-border recognition of qualifications and portability of registration. Scope of practice reform adapted to modern health systems can improve access and quality. Alternatives to statutory registration for lower-risk health occupations can improve services and protect the public, while standardized evaluation frameworks can aid regulatory strengthening. Knowledge gaps remain around the outcomes and effectiveness of HPR processes, including continuing professional development models, national licensing examinations, accreditation of health practitioner education programs, mandatory reporting obligations, remediation programs, and statutory registration of traditional and complementary medicine practitioners.

CONCLUSION

We identified key themes, issues, and evidence gaps valuable for governments, regulators, and health system leaders. We also identified evidence base limitations that warrant caution when interpreting and generalizing the results across jurisdictions and professions. Themes and findings reflect interests and concerns in high-income Anglophone countries where most literature originated. Most studies were descriptive, resulting in a low certainty of evidence. To inform regulatory design and reform, research funders and governments should prioritize evidence on regulatory outcomes, including innovative approaches we identified in our review. Additionally, a systematic approach is needed to track and evaluate the impact of regulatory interventions and innovations on achieving health workforce and health systems goals.

Barriers to accessing internationally controlled essential medicines in sub-saharan Africa: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Access to internationally controlled essential medicines (ICEMs), medicines that are listed on both the World Health Organization's Essential Medicines List and one of three international drug control conventions, remains problematic in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Previous reviews have focused only on specific ICEMs or ICEM-related healthcare fields, but none have focused on all ICEMs as a distinct class. This scoping review therefore aims to identify the barriers to accessing ICEMs across all relevant healthcare fields in SSA.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted across indexing platforms Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science of studies published between January 1 2012 and February 1 2022. Articles were eligible if they mentioned barriers to accessing ICEMs and/or ICEM-related healthcare fields, if studies were conducted in SSA, or included data on an SSA country within a multi-country study. The review was guided by the Access to Medicines from a Health System Perspective framework.

RESULTS

The search identified 5519 articles, of which 97 met the inclusion criteria. Many barriers to access were reported and were common across the ICEMs drug class. Main barriers were: at the individual level, the lack of knowledge about ICEMs; at the health service delivery level, low availability, stockouts, affordability, long distances to health facilities, insufficient infrastructure to store and distribute ICEMs, and lack of ICEM knowledge and training among healthcare workers; at the health sector level, lack of prioritisation of ICEM-related healthcare fields by governments and subsequent insufficient budget allocation. Cross-cutting, governance-related barriers pertained to lack of proper quantification systems, cumbersome procurement processes, and strict national laws controlling ICEMs, leading to overly restrictive prescription practices.

CONCLUSION

This review showed that there are a multitude of barriers to accessing ICEMs in SSA across all health system levels. Many of the barriers identified are applicable to all ICEMs, highlighting the importance of tackling barriers for this entire class of drugs together.

The emerging role of the advanced practice epilepsy nurse: A comparative study between two countries

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to compare advanced practice in epilepsy nurses in Spain and United Kingdom, identifying differences in the domains of standard advanced practice.

BACKGROUND

Europe has recently faced the challenge of providing high-quality care for patients with epilepsy, a disease that generates many health demands. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, advanced practice nursing is well established and could serve as a guide for implantation in countries where it is still in development, as is the case of Spain.

DESIGN

A multicentre cross-sectional descriptive cohort study compared differences in the roles of advanced practice nurses in Spain and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

The Advanced Practice Role Delineation Tool and its validated Spanish version were administered using an online questionnaire in a cohort of advanced practice epilepsy nurses in both countries. A convenience sample was recruited between January to December 2019. The study complied with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist.

RESULTS

Most United Kingdom nurses in our sample came from community environments, in contrast to Spanish nurses who worked in hospital. All domains analysed in the survey had significantly higher scores in the United Kingdom than in the Spanish cohort, especially in the research and leadership domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The advanced practice role in Spain is underdeveloped compared with the United Kingdom. Differences in the settings of advanced roles in epilepsy nurses may be explained by greater community practice in the United Kingdom and differences in organisational and health systems.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Our study showed the need to implement specific policies to develop advance practice nurse roles in Spain to improve the quality of care of patients with epilepsy.

Use and evaluation of a mentoring scheme to promote integration of non-medical prescribing in a clinical context

BACKGROUND

Growing numbers of non-medical health professionals are attaining prescribing rights through post-registration non-medical prescribing (NMP) courses in the UK. However, not all implement prescribing post-qualification. This study evaluated the uptake and perceived usefulness of a mentoring scheme for two cohorts of NMP students at the University of Nottingham. The scheme paired students with qualified mentors with whom they had an opportunity to discuss the integration of prescribing theory into practice.

METHODS

Mentors were allocated on days 2-5 of the course. Surveys were distributed to students who completed the NMP course [n = 63] and their mentors. Likert-scale and open-ended questions addressed: use, perceived usefulness, and positive and negative aspects of the mentoring scheme. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with both students (n = 6) and mentors (n = 3) to explore their experience of the mentoring scheme in more detail. Students were purposively selected for interview depending on their level of use of the mentoring system. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The response rates were 65.1% (n = 41) and 56.3% (n = 36) for students and mentors respectively. Just over half of students (57.1%) accessed their mentor. Having a sufficient support network was the key reason for not using the scheme. Students found mentors helpful for: moral support (68.2%); contextualising prescribing (71.4%); and helping them to think about implementing prescribing in practice (72.7%). Fewer mentors felt they helped in relation to contextualising (57.9%) or implementing prescribing (31.6%). Less than half the students and mentors surveyed agreed that they received/provided assistance related to the integration of prescribing theory into practice (38.1% and 42.2% respectively) and assistance with assignments (36.3% and 45.5% respectively).Interviews suggested that students found it difficult to focus on implementing prescribing because of the academic demands of their course, which impacted on uptake and use of the mentoring scheme. Students emphasised the importance of being paired with a prescriber who was successfully prescribing. Mentors benefited from sharing and refreshing their academic knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Students and mentors derived benefits from participation in this scheme. This intervention may be better as a post-qualification support resource when students are ready to consider their future prescribing practice.