↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacists in general practice: a qualitative interview case study of stakeholders’ experiences in a West London GP federation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
34 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmacists in general practice: a qualitative interview case study of stakeholders’ experiences in a West London GP federation
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3056-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kath Ryan, Nilesh Patel, Wing Man Lau, Hamza Abu-Elmagd, Graham Stretch, Helen Pinney

Abstract

Increased patient demand for healthcare services coupled with a shortage of general practitioners necessitates changes in professional roles and service delivery. In 2016, NHS England began a 3-year- pilot study of pharmacists in general practice, however, this is not an entirely new initiative. There is limited, current, evidence-based, UK research to inform the pilot so studies of pre-existing services must suffice until findings from a formal national evaluation are available. The aim of this exploratory, descriptive interview study was to explore the experiences of stakeholders in eight general practices in the Ealing GP Federation, West London, where pharmacy services have been provided for several years. Forty-seven participants, including pharmacy team members (pre-registration and clinical pharmacists, independent prescribers and pharmacy technicians), general practitioners, patients, practice managers, practice nurses and receptionists took part in semi-structured, audio-recorded qualitative interviews which were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed thematically to extract the issues raised by participants and the practicalities of providing pharmacy services in general practice. Findings are reported under the themes of Complementarity (incorporating roles, skills, education and workloads); Integration (incorporating relationships, trust and communication) and Practicalities (incorporating location and space, access, and costs). Participants reported the need for time to develop and understand the various roles, develop communication processes and build inter-professional trust. Once these were established, however, experiences were positive and included decreased workloads, increased patient safety, improved job satisfaction, improved patient relationships, and enhanced cost savings. Areas for improvement included patients' awareness of services; pharmacists' training; and regular, onsite access for practice staff to the pharmacy team. Recommendations are made for the development of clear role definitions, identification of training needs, dedication of time for team building, production of educational materials for practice staff members and patients, and provision of on-site, full-time pharmacy services. Future work should focus on evaluation of various models of employing pharmacy teams in general practice; integration of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians into multidisciplinary general practice teams; relationships between local community pharmacy and general practice personnel; and patients' service and information needs. A formal national evaluation of the pilot scheme is overdue.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Researcher 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 53 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 22 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 61 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,324,493
of 25,366,663 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#398
of 8,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,607
of 335,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#17
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,366,663 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.