ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2024
A qualitative exploration of how pharmacy professionals in primary care utilise planned protected development time.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With patients developing more complex healthcare and medicine needs, it is imperative pharmacy professionals enhance their knowledge and skills to enable an advanced level of pharmaceutical practice, improving service provision and supporting patient care. The UK Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) is urging employers to incorporate protected time within the working week to facilitate this development. Currently protected development time (PDT) is not well established within the pharmacy profession and there is little qualitative data available about the utility of this. Objective: To explore how pharmacy professionals in primary care currently utilise planned protected 'development time' and their perception of this. Methods: One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted between February and March 2023 via Microsoft Teams® with pharmacists, pharmacy technicians (PTs) and pharmacy support workers (PSWs), working in a large Health board area in Scotland who had established PDT since August 2021. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic framework approach. Results: Interviews were conducted with 13 participants (12 female); 6 pharmacists, 5 PTs and 2 PSWs. Five core themes were derived from the data: logistics, competing priorities, methods for development, inequalities and benefits. Participants utility of PDT was variable, most focused on self-development to improve clinical knowledge however, supporting the development of others often taking precedence. Disparities in utility and inequity of protection from service delivery were highlighted. All participants befitted from PDT reporting a self-assessed improvement in confidence and competence. Conclusion: The experience of participants who had PDT was typically perceived as positive including supporting development and improving wellbeing however, it fostered inequalities which needs addressing. Educational input is required to provide direction for development across all four pillars of professional practice; clinical practice, leadership, education and research, promoting advanced practice. Further research is required to assess the impact of PDT on health outcomes of the local population.
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.