Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30642315›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

How do pharmacists in English general practices identify their impact? An exploratory qualitative study of measurement problems.

Georgios Dimitrios Karampatakis, Kath Ryan, Nilesh Patel, Wing Man Lau, Graham Stretch

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Negotiating new roles in general practice: a qualitative study of clinical pharmacists.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  3. GPs' and pharmacists' views of integrating pharmacists into general practices: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Georgios Dimitrios KarampatakisSchool of Pharmacy, University of Reading, Whiteknights Campus, PO Box 226, Reading, RG6 6AP, UK. G.D.Karampatakis@pgr.reading.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0623-8231
Kath RyanSchool of Pharmacy, University of Reading, Whiteknights Campus, PO Box 226, Reading, RG6 6AP, UK.
Nilesh PatelSchool of Pharmacy, University of Reading, Whiteknights Campus, PO Box 226, Reading, RG6 6AP, UK.
Wing Man LauSchool of Pharmacy, University of Reading, Whiteknights Campus, PO Box 226, Reading, RG6 6AP, UK.
Graham StretchEaling GP Federation, 179C Bilton Road, Perivale, Greenford, Middlesex, UB6 7HQ, UK.

Funding

Ealing GP Federation through the postgraduate studentship - no seperate number availableUniversity of Reading GS16-060 (postgraduate studentship reference number)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn England, there is an ongoing national pilot to expand pharmacists' presence in general practice. Evaluation of the pilot includes numerical and survey-based Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and requires pharmacists to electronically record their activities, possibly by using activity codes. At the time of the study (2016), no national evaluation of pharmacists' impact in this environment had been formally announced. The aim of this qualitative study was to identify problems that English pharmacists face when measuring and recording their impact in general practice.

methodsAll pharmacists, general practitioners (GPs) and practice managers working across two West London pilot sites were invited, via e-mail, to participate in a focus group study. Appropriately trained facilitators conducted two audio-recorded, semi-structured focus groups, each lasting approximately 1 h, to explore experiences and perceptions associated with the KPIs. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and the data analysed thematically.

resultsIn total, 13 pharmacists, one GP and one practice manager took part in the study. Four major themes were discerned: inappropriateness of the numerical national KPIs ("whether or not we actually have positive impact on KPIs is beyond our control"); depth and breadth of pharmacists' activity ("we see a huge plethora of different patients and go through this holistic approach - everything is looked at"); awareness of practice-based pharmacists' roles ("I think the really important [thing] is that everyone knows what pharmacists in general practice are doing"); and central evaluation versus local initiatives ("the KPIs will be measured by National Health Service England regardless of what we think" versus "what I think is more pertinent, are there some local things we're going to measure?").

conclusionsMeasures that will effectively capture pharmacists' impact in general practice should be developed, along with a set of codes reflecting the whole spectrum of pharmacists' activities. Our study also points out the significance of a transparent, robust national evaluation, including exploring the needs/expectations of practice staff and patients regarding pharmacists' presence in general practice.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFocus GroupsGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersHumansLondonLongitudinal StudiesPatient SatisfactionPerceptionPharmacistsPilot ProjectsProfessional-Patient RelationsProfessional PracticeProfessional RoleQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesActivity codesEnglandImpactPharmacists in general practice pilotQualitative study

Identifiers

PMID30642315
PMCPMC6332895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.