Concerns about substandard training for prescription privileges for psychologists

This Commentary on the Muse and McGrath study (this issue, pp. XXX–XXX) refutes its conclusion that the amount of training for prescription privileges for psychologists (R×P) is equal to or greater than that for psychiatric nurse practitioners and physicians. First, the sample failed to include only...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical psychology 2010-01, Vol.66 (1), p.104-111
Main Author: Heiby, Elaine M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clinical psychology
Drug Prescriptions
Health education
Humans
Medical Staff Privileges
Nurse practitioners
Physicians
prescription privileges for psychologists
Prescriptions
Professional Autonomy
Psychologists
Psychology - education
Psychotropic Drugs - therapeutic use
R×P
Training
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This Commentary on the Muse and McGrath study (this issue, pp. XXX–XXX) refutes its conclusion that the amount of training for prescription privileges for psychologists (R×P) is equal to or greater than that for psychiatric nurse practitioners and physicians. First, the sample failed to include only training programs for nurses and psychologists that lead to independent prescribing. Second, training was defined by an arbitrary, nonvalidated list of “key content areas” that excluded much of the standard medical curricula for nurses and physicians to prescribe. Third, the levels of training for which the “key content areas” were assessed omitted undergraduate prerequisites, apprenticeships, supervised practice, and residencies that are a standard part of the nursing and physician programs studied. R×P training remains substandard. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol: 66: 1–8, 2010.
ISSN:0021-9762
1097-4679
DOI:10.1002/jclp.20650