Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorWarholak, Terrien
dc.contributor.authorShreve, Melissa
dc.contributor.authorSawyer, Tatiana
dc.contributor.authorNelson, Mel
dc.contributor.authorWarholak, Terri
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-21T20:28:24Z
dc.date.available2016-06-21T20:28:24Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/613944
dc.descriptionClass of 2016 Abstracten
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To identify which types of mid-level practitioners have prescribing authority in each state in the United States (US), compare the types of prescriptive authority for scheduled medications for mid-level practitioners, and delineate differences between state and federal requirements for electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) for mid-level practitioners in each state. Methods: A data extraction tool was developed and utilized to collect e-prescribing requirements and mid-level practitioner prescriptive authority from publically accessible state and federal websites. Dependent variables were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. A comparison of regional mid-level practitioner prescriptive authority patterns was conducted. Results: Mid-level practitioner prescriptive authority and e-prescribing requirements were collected from 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). For e-prescribing requirements, 19 (37%) states listed federal law requirements, 28 (55%) states listed requirements in addition to federal law, and 4 states (8%) did not specify requirements. Overall, over half of the US had more stringent e-prescribing requirements than federal law. States varied in which mid-level practitioners had authority to prescribe controlled substances: 98% of states allow nurse practitioners to prescribe; 96% allow physician assistants; 84% allow optometrists; 14% allow naturopathic doctors; 12% allow registered pharmacists; 8% allow certified nurse midwives, 4% allow homeopathic physicians, medical psychologists, and nursing homes; and 2% allow doctors of oriental medicine, certified chiropractors, clinical nurse specialists and/or advanced practice registered nurses. Conclusions: There are differences in e-prescribing requirements and varying levels of prescriptive authority for mid-level practitioners between US states.
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author.en
dc.subjectElectronic prescribingen
dc.subjectpractitionersen
dc.subjectUnited States (US)en
dc.subject.meshElectronic Prescribing
dc.titleElectronic Prescribing Requirements for Mid-level Practitioners in the United Statesen_US
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Reporten
dc.contributor.departmentCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizonaen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Associate Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, jenmartin@email.arizona.edu.en
html.description.abstractObjectives: To identify which types of mid-level practitioners have prescribing authority in each state in the United States (US), compare the types of prescriptive authority for scheduled medications for mid-level practitioners, and delineate differences between state and federal requirements for electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) for mid-level practitioners in each state. Methods: A data extraction tool was developed and utilized to collect e-prescribing requirements and mid-level practitioner prescriptive authority from publically accessible state and federal websites. Dependent variables were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. A comparison of regional mid-level practitioner prescriptive authority patterns was conducted. Results: Mid-level practitioner prescriptive authority and e-prescribing requirements were collected from 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). For e-prescribing requirements, 19 (37%) states listed federal law requirements, 28 (55%) states listed requirements in addition to federal law, and 4 states (8%) did not specify requirements. Overall, over half of the US had more stringent e-prescribing requirements than federal law. States varied in which mid-level practitioners had authority to prescribe controlled substances: 98% of states allow nurse practitioners to prescribe; 96% allow physician assistants; 84% allow optometrists; 14% allow naturopathic doctors; 12% allow registered pharmacists; 8% allow certified nurse midwives, 4% allow homeopathic physicians, medical psychologists, and nursing homes; and 2% allow doctors of oriental medicine, certified chiropractors, clinical nurse specialists and/or advanced practice registered nurses. Conclusions: There are differences in e-prescribing requirements and varying levels of prescriptive authority for mid-level practitioners between US states.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record