Community pharmacist consultation service: survey insights into impact of learning on practice, and barriers and enablers to service implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Some patients attend NHS services with ‘clinically divertible’ urgent low acuity conditions. The NHS Community Pharmacist Consultation Service (CPCS) enables the referral of such patients and subsequent consultation with a community pharmacist. The Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education (CPPE) offered a learning programme to prepare pharmacists for a more clinical and person-centred approach when delivering the CPCS. Aim To investigate the impact of the CPPE CPCS learning programme on learnt skills and their application in practice, and barriers and enablers to CPCS delivery. Methods A survey was designed to explored participants’ knowledge, confidence and application of taught skills/tools, including clinical history-taking, clinical assessment, record-keeping, Calgary-Cambridge, L(ICE)F (lifestyle, ideas, concerns, expectations, feelings) and SBARD (situation, background, assessment, recommendation, decision) communication tools. Statements on barriers and enablers to CPCS delivery were included. In November/December 2021, CPPE emailed an online survey (one reminder) to CPCS learners who had agreed to be contacted (n=2836). The University of Manchester’s Research Ethics Committee decision tool confirmed that ethics committee approval was not required for this study. Results One-hundred and fifty-nine pharmacists responded (5.6%). Sixty percent were female, all ages were represented, the most populous groups being 55-64 (33.3%) and 45-54 years (27.7%). Ethnicity was broadly representative of community pharmacists: 49.0% white, 38.9% Asian, 8.2% black, and 1.9% Arab. Sixty-eight (43%) of respondents were working in a large multiple community pharmacy, 33.3% (n=53) in an independent pharmacy, and 17.0% (n=27) in a small to medium pharmacy multiple. Knowledge of, and confidence in, taught skills were high and respondents reported applying skills in CPCS consultations and wider practice. There was strong positive correlation between the perceived levels of competence and confidence when delivering CPCS (r=0.966, p=<0.001). The level of competence (r=0.259, p=0.003) and confidence increased (r=0.264, p=0.002) with an increasing number of NHS111 referrals. With regards to specific skills learnt, the highest levels of knowledge were recorded for ‘taking a clinical history’ (86% agreement), ‘clinically assessing a patient’ (84%), ‘using L(ICE)F’ (84%), and ‘completing an accurate and concise clinical record’ (81%). Seventy-three percent of respondents agreed they knew how to use the Calgary Cambridge, whilst only 49% knew how to use SBARD. Barriers to CPCS included lack of GP referrals, staffing levels, workload, and GP attitudes. Enablers included a clear understanding of what was expected, minimal concerns over indemnity cover and privacy, and positive patient attitudes towards pharmacy. Those working in independent pharmacies were more likely than those in multiple pharmacies to report that they were receiving GP referrals (68.5% vs. 49.0%, X2=5.249, p=0.022), that they had enough staff to provide the CPCS (45.3% vs. 26.3%, X2=5.526, p=0.019), and that the local GP considers community pharmacy to be an integral part of the primary healthcare team (54.7% vs. 37.2%, X2=4.214, p=0.040). Employed pharmacists were more likely than locums to report that they had a good relationship with their local general practice (57.5% vs. 37.5%, X2=5.436, p=0.020). Discussion/Conclusion This study demonstrates that CPPE learning contributed to community pharmacists’ extended knowledge and skills in CPCS delivery, which contributes to enhanced provision of urgent care in England. This study identified barriers, both interpersonal and infrastructural, that may hinder service implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".