Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40775484›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026

A mixed methods evaluation of a shared electronic health record between general practice and community pharmacy.

J Fynn, M Lamptey, G Coote, M J Twigg, J Newman, S Lingard, M Cooper, H Nazar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

J FynnHealth Innovation East, Shelford Bottom, Cambridge, CB22 3AD, UK.
M LampteyHealth Innovation East, Shelford Bottom, Cambridge, CB22 3AD, UK.
G CooteHealth Innovation East, Shelford Bottom, Cambridge, CB22 3AD, UK.
M J TwiggSchool of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR47TJ, UK.
J NewmanNHS England, East of England Region, Victoria House, Camlife, Fulbourn, Cambridgeshire, CB21 5XB, UK.
S LingardNHS England, East of England Region, Victoria House, Camlife, Fulbourn, Cambridgeshire, CB21 5XB, UK.
M CooperNational Institute for Health and Care Research Newcastle Patient Safety Research Collaboration, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
H NazarNational Institute for Health and Care Research Newcastle Patient Safety Research Collaboration, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. hamde.nazar@newcastle.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntegrating community pharmacies into primary care via digital infrastructure is crucial to enhancing continuity, coordination, and safety of care. Historically, community pharmacies have not had full access to general practice electronic health records (EHRs), limiting their ability to provide informed interventions. The introduction of shared, interoperable EHRs has the potential to address this limitation and redefine the clinical role of community pharmacists.

aimThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of granting community pharmacies read-and-write access to a shared EHR system (SystmOne) across selected sites in the East of England.

methodA 12-month mixed-methods pilot (Jan-Dec 2023) was conducted using an explanatory sequential and convergent approach. Data were collected from 35 community pharmacies and 31 general practices via activity logs, surveys, and semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics was used to analyse quantitative data and thematic coding used for analysing qualitative data. Data was then integrated to evaluate service delivery, communication, and user experience.

resultsThirteen community pharmacies actively used the EHR, documenting over 19,000 appointments and 16,000 clinical entries. Usage varied, with barriers including workload, technical complexity, and duplicated documentation requirements. However, users reported improvements in patient safety, interprofessional communication, and service efficiency. Appointment booking and task-sharing functions fostered collaborative working, while access to real-time clinical information supported clinical decision-making. Training support, trust between sectors, and policy alignment were identified as critical enablers for system uptake.

conclusionProviding community pharmacies with read-and-write access to a shared EHR is feasible and contributes to safer, more integrated patient care. Improved communication, clinical documentation, and task delegation between pharmacists and general practice staff represent a major shift in digital collaboration. However, successful scale-up requires investment in interoperability, national IT infrastructure alignment, and streamlined reimbursement processes to prevent duplication of effort. These findings support the evolving clinical role of community pharmacists and suggest that integrated digital systems are essential to realising the full potential of community pharmacy in the modern NHS to improve patient care.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesElectronic Health RecordsGeneral PracticePharmacistsEnglandHumansPilot ProjectsProfessional RoleCommunity pharmacyElectronic health recordPrimary careSummary care record

Identifiers

PMID40775484
PMCPMC12823636

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.