IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i3p599-609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nurse prescribing: Reflections on safety in practice

Author

Listed:
  • Bradley, Eleanor
  • Hynam, Brian
  • Nolan, Peter

Abstract

This qualitative study explores how recently qualified nurse prescribers describe, and rate, the safety of their prescribing. Internationally, the costs of drug errors are enormous and they can have serious implications for staff and patients. Nurses are now undertaking extended prescribing practice throughout the UK. Nurse prescribers work across different work settings and although safe prescribing is a priority in all of them, it is essential to ascertain the conditions that foster the highest levels of safety and how nurses can be supported in practice. Thirty-one nurses form the West Midlands area of England agreed to participate in an in-depth interview which sought to elicit their responses to various aspects of their prescribing work. They came from a variety of specialities and from hospital, community and general practice backgrounds. On completion of their training nurses were acutely aware of the responsibility that prescribing imposed on them. Although this awareness was thought to encourage caution and safety, it may also account for the fact that 26% of the nurses (n=8) had not prescribed since qualifying. Nurses felt that the multidisciplinary team had a vital role to play in supporting their prescribing practice as did collaborative working. It is concluded that those working in specialty areas that are less well-defined in terms of scope of practice (e.g. older adult nursing and learning disability) would benefit in particular from ongoing mentoring relationships with experienced prescribers and the development of individual formularies.

Suggested Citation

  • Bradley, Eleanor & Hynam, Brian & Nolan, Peter, 2007. "Nurse prescribing: Reflections on safety in practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 599-609, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:3:p:599-609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00177-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Iedema, Roderick Aren Michael & Jorm, Christine & Long, Debbi & Braithwaite, Jeffrey & Travaglia, Jo & Westbrook, Mary, 2006. "Turning the medical gaze in upon itself: Root cause analysis and the investigation of clinical error," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 1605-1615, April.
    2. Prosser, Helen & Walley, Tom, 2006. "New drug prescribing by hospital doctors: The nature and meaning of knowledge," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 1565-1578, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anecita Gigi Lim & Nicola North & John Shaw, 2018. "Beginners in prescribing practice: Experiences and perceptions of nurses and doctors," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 1103-1112, March.
    2. Weiss, Marjorie Cecilia, 2011. "Diagnostic decision making: The last refuge for general practitioners?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 375-382, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Iedema, Roderick Aren Michael & Jorm, Christine & Braithwaite, Jeffrey & Travaglia, Jo & Lum, Martin, 2006. "A root cause analysis of clinical error: Confronting the disjunction between formal rules and situated clinical activity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1201-1212, September.
    2. Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun & Strating, Mathilde & Nieboer, Anna & Bal, Roland, 2009. "Sociological refigurations of patient safety; ontologies of improvement and 'acting with' quality collaboratives in healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1713-1721, December.
    3. Julie M Donohue & Hasan Guclu & Walid F Gellad & Chung-Chou H Chang & Haiden A Huskamp & Niteesh K Choudhry & Ruoxin Zhang & Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic & Stefanie P Junker & Timothy Anderson & Seth Richards, 2018. "Influence of peer networks on physician adoption of new drugs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Nicolini, Davide & Waring, Justin & Mengis, Jeanne, 2011. "Policy and practice in the use of root cause analysis to investigate clinical adverse events: Mind the gap," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 217-225, July.
    5. Josje Kok & Ian Leistikow & Roland Bal, 2019. "Pedagogy of regulation: Strategies and instruments to supervise learning from adverse events," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 470-487, December.
    6. Raghuram Iyengar & Christophe Van den Bulte & Jae Young Lee, 2015. "Social Contagion in New Product Trial and Repeat," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 408-429, May.
    7. Lin, Shu-Jou & Jan, Kuan-An & Kao, Jen-Tse, 2011. "Colleague interactions and new drug prescribing behavior: The case of the initial prescription of antidepressants in Taiwanese medical centers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(8), pages 1208-1213.
    8. Mamas Theodorou & Antonis Kontemeniotis & Marios Kantaris & Antonis Farmakas, 2022. "Disentangling prescribing behaviour of Cypriot physicians, within a complex framework of interacting," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 2410-2420, July.
    9. Benedek, Gábor & Lublóy, Ágnes & Keresztúri, Judit Lilla, 2015. "Az orvosok közötti kapcsolatok szerepe az új gyógyszerek elfogadásában [The impacts of three types of social interaction on the spread of new types of drug]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 786-810.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:3:p:599-609. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.