Myth-busting in non-medical prescribing

As a university lecturer on a non-medical prescribing course, I am exposed to trainee prescribers on a near daily basis. On the induction day, we ask our students about their prescribing ‘hopes’ and ‘fears’. After doing this job for more than 14 years, I can predict their answers, as the same things recur. Many students fear the increased accountability and responsibility, and the assessment at the end of the course. However, we can help allay these fears by myth-busting. I particularly love hearing the student's hopes. They fall into similar broad categories, such as completing episodes of care, improving access to medication, saving time and resources and increased job satisfaction.

One thing that straddles both hopes and fears is the ‘writing of a prescription’. I find this interesting because the mechanical task of writing a prescription is very simple; I suspect that I could teach anyone to do it. The decision about what information goes where and how much information to put is an easy skill to learn. But I think it's the accountability of putting one's signature to something and being the person responsible for the giving of a drug that hits home. I try to remind my students that, at the point in their careers where they are accessing a prescribing course, they are probably already doing the decision-making after assessing a patient or client, diagnosing and having a concordant conversation about what is needed for the patient's condition.