The rise of non-medical prescribing and medical dominance.

Medical decision-making Medical dominance Medicine Pharmacy Prescribing Professional autonomy

Journal

Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP
ISSN: 1934-8150
Titre abrégé: Res Social Adm Pharm
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231974

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2021
Historique:
received: 28 01 2020
revised: 01 04 2020
accepted: 13 05 2020
pubmed: 29 5 2020
medline: 29 7 2021
entrez: 29 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

This article contributes to the continuing debate on the professional dominance of medicine given the rising number of professions allied to medicine that now have the legal authority to prescribe and could potentially threaten this dominance. The key questions addressed are whether non-medical prescribers represent a threat to the dominance of medicine and if they do not, what has mediated doctors' response to these newer prescribers such that they are able to retain dominance? Drawing on Abbott's work on jurisdictional claims, this paper explores how the rise of non-medical prescribing has led to competing jurisdictional claims over prescribing between doctors and non-medical prescribers. This paper particularly focuses on pharmacist prescribing and how competing jurisdictional claims could be settled. It discusses why the profession of medicine is still dominant and the importance of professional ideologies to influencing the outcome of competing jurisdictional claims. The professional ideology of medicine has shifted from valuing prescribing to valuing the indeterminacy involved in complex clinical decision making, illustrating medicine's ability to adapt, retain dominance and maintain cultural authority over clinical knowledge. In contrast, pharmacist prescribers' professional ideology involves having specialist medicines expertise and being safe prescribers. Pharmacists draw upon this ideology to argue their unique competence as a prescriber: given their pharmacological knowledge and attention to detail which facilitates their role as clinical checker or 'safety net' on prescribing. However, medicine's cultural authority in clinical decision-making enables, when there are competing jurisdictional claims over prescribing, for doctors to retain intellectual jurisdiction: control over the cognitive knowledge base involved in prescribing and clinical decision making. Could this be eroded to a weaker form of control involving advisory jurisdiction? Should political developments further favour the widespread acceptance of prescribing as a core part of the pharmacist's role, an erosion to advisory jurisdiction may yet be possible.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32461165
pii: S1551-7411(20)30067-X
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.05.015
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

632-637

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Marjorie C Weiss (MC)

School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Redwood Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3NB, United Kingdom. Electronic address: WeissM1@cardiff.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH