ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2024
Negotiating new roles in general practice: a qualitative study of clinical pharmacists.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Chronic Care in Primary Care: Exploring the Role and Impact of General Practice Pharmacists in Managing Long-Term Conditions in Northern Ireland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Developing Integrated Extended Pharmacist Roles and Services for Equitable Access and Outcomes in Primary Healthcare: A Realist Evaluation.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo address general practice workforce shortages, policy in England has supported the recruitment of 'non-medical' roles through reimbursement funding. As one of the first to receive funding, the clinical pharmacist role offers insight into the process of new role negotiation at general practice level.
aimTo identify factors influencing clinical pharmacist role negotiation at practice level, comparing the process under two different funding and employment models. DESIGN AND
settingQualitative interview study with staff involved in the following schemes: 1) the national NHS England (NHSE) Clinical Pharmacists in General Practice scheme; and 2) a local clinical commissioning group-funded scheme, providing clinical pharmacist support to general practices in one area of Greater Manchester in the UK.
methodSemi-structured interviews with purposive and snowball sampling of pharmacists, GPs, and practice staff took place. The interviews were analysed using template analysis.
resultsIn total, 41 interviews were conducted. The following four factors were found to influence role negotiation: role ambiguity; competing demands and priorities; potential for (in)appropriate utilisation of clinical skills; and level of general practice control over the role. Key differences between the two funding and employment models were the level of influence GPs had in shaping the role and how adaptable pharmacists could be to practice needs. The potential for inappropriate utilisation was reported under both schemes, but most apparent under the role reimbursement, direct employment model of the NHSE scheme.
conclusionThis study has highlighted lessons applicable for the introduction of non-medical roles more widely in general practice. It has provided insight into the factors that can influence role negotiation at practice level and how different funding and/or employment models can impact on this process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.