Effectiveness and safety of pharmacist prescribing: a systematic review
Áine Teahan, Melissa Sharp, Ailish Farragher, Judith Strawbridge, Jean LongObjective
To examine the effectiveness and safety of pharmacist prescribing across multiple healthcare settings.
Design
A systematic review of quantitative studies.
Eligibility criteria for the selection of studies
Quantitative studies assessing the effectiveness and safety of pharmacist prescribing compared with non-pharmacist prescribing in any healthcare setting and for any healthcare population. A clear statement of pharmacists’ prescriptive authority was required for inclusion in this systematic review.
Data sources
A systematic search was conducted using six electronic databases: Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (EBSCO), SCiELO, Dimensions AI, Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos. Database searches were conducted from database inception to 29 January 2025. Additional grey literature searches were conducted using Google and DuckDuckGo. Both backward and forward citation chasing were conducted for all included studies.
Data extraction and synthesis
Data were extracted using standardised bespoke data extraction forms. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomised controlled trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tool were used to assess risk of bias. A narrative synthesis approach was applied following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guideline. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the level of certainty of the evidence.
Results
Of the 39 included studies, 32 studies reported on effectiveness and 20 studies reported on safety across 15 health conditions. Healthcare settings included outpatient (n=14), primary care (n=10), community pharmacy (n=6), inpatient (n=5), emergency department (n=1) and long-term care (n=3). These studies were based in the USA (n=26), Canada (n=5), the UK (n=4), Australia (n=2) and Singapore (n=2). In total, there were 153 outcomes related to safety and effectiveness. For 74 outcomes, no significant difference was reported between pharmacist prescribing and non-pharmacist prescribing, while 46 outcomes were significantly improved with pharmacist prescribing. Four outcomes reported in favour of non-pharmacist prescribing. Inferential statistics were not reported for 29 outcomes, meaning we cannot comment on their statistical significance. The certainty of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.
Conclusions
The consistency of effectiveness and safety findings across studies, showing either no significant difference (indicating equivalence of care and outcomes) or significant improvement in pharmacist prescribing groups, suggests it is a potential policy option. Future research on implementation, public and patient preferences and cost-effectiveness would provide valuable insights into the potential benefits of pharmacist prescribing at a health system level.