This is likely to be due to changes in curricula that have occurred throughout Australian pharmacy schools over this time, and the self-assessed need for an update in pharmacology and therapeutics. These findings suggest that a bridging course may be required for pharmacists registered for >20 years who would require further training in the above-mentioned therapeutic areas compared to pharmacists who have graduated selleck kinase inhibitor more recently in whom self-assessment

could be all that is needed and hence their training is focused on areas specific to prescribing that are not traditionally covered in pharmacy curricula. These findings are in line with the experience from the UK where pharmacists did not highly value training in pharmacology and pharmacokinetics.[4, 21] This study found that although most consultant pharmacists

supported additional training if prescribing roles are assumed, this support was weaker compared to community, hospital and other pharmacists. This difference in attitudes may be due to additional credentialing and assessment that these pharmacists must undertake in order to gain accreditation to practise as consultant pharmacists. This finding needs to be interpreted bearing in mind the low number of consultant pharmacist respondents in this study and in the context of positive experiences with the UK non-medical prescribing course reported in a Rucaparib study with

Australian hospital pharmacists, some of whom may have also been credentialed as consultant pharmacists.[25] The IPO supporters (although in general being supportive of training in those topics) showed significantly diminished levels of preference compared to SPO and IP/SP supporters in regards to the most preferred topics such as pathophysiology of conditions, principles of diagnosis and patient assessment and monitoring. Furthermore, support for IP was also associated with lower agreement levels for pharmacists’ limited training in disease diagnosis and patient assessment and monitoring as being barriers towards expanded pharmacist prescribing. It should be from noted that the majority of IPO supporters of this study only preferred IP in areas of antibiotics for a limited range of infections, pain management followed by asthma management, which was similar to the attitudes of IP/SP supporters (published elsewhere).[11] These findings may be indicative of IPO supporters’ increased confidence to assume prescribing roles for limited therapeutic areas, especially a limited range of infections and pain management, without proceeding through a supplementary stage of prescribing.