481 An exploration of general practice pharmacists’ (GPPs) views on their role in general practice: a cross-sectional questionnaire study

Abstract

Abstract Introduction The integration of pharmacists into general practice across the UK (also called general practice pharmacists; GPPs) has been tested through different pilot plans; the intention of this integration was to address issues of the primary care workforce and workload (1). Currently, there is a lack of research examining the views of GPPs on their role and their impact in general practice within the UK. Findings from published studies may not be generalisable to specific UK regions due to differences in the organisation and funding mechanisms of healthcare between these regions (2). Aim To explore GPPs’ views regarding their role within general practice in one region of the UK. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, a paper-based self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all general practices in one UK region (n=319) in June and July 2022 and was completed by one GPP in every general practice. The questionnaire was developed following a review of published literature related to GPPs’ views of their role in general practice (1,2). A variety of open-ended and closed-ended questions were included in six sections: demographics, activities of GPPs, GPPs’ communication within primary care, GPPs’ attitudes towards collaboration, GPPs’ communication with patients and GPPs’ views on their impact in primary care. All returned questionnaires were coded, entered into Microsoft Excel 365, and then imported into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 28 to conduct descriptive statistical analysis. Responses to five-point Likert scale statements were also analysed descriptively by calculating the percentage of agreement or disagreement to each statement. Results One hundred and fifty-five responses were received, equating to a response rate of 48.5%. The majority of respondents were female (72.3%; n=112) aged between 30-39 years. The services that were provided by GPPs were medication reconciliation (99.4%; n=154) and medication reviews (97.4%; n=151). The majority of GPPs indicated that the most common method of communication between them and GPs was face-to-face (89.0%, n=138). Just under 60% of respondents (58.7%; n=91) expressed positive attitudes towards collaboration (based on a validated scale) with GPs, and most of them agreed/strongly agreed (84.5%; n=131) that the roles of the GPP and GP in patient care were clear. When GPPs contacted patients, the most common method of communication was via the telephone (98.7%, n=153). Only a third of GPPs (32.9%; n=51) agreed that patients were aware of the role they provided. The majority of GPPs expressed positive views on the impact of the GPPs on primary care and strongly agreed that the GPP role had a positive impact on patient outcomes (80.6%; n=125), alleviated work pressure within primary care (89.7%; n=139) and helped to reduce prescribing errors (81.3%; n=126). Conclusion The findings from this study indicated that GPPs were largely positive about their contribution to primary care and their impact on patients. However, they recognised that patients were largely unaware of their role. The findings may provide useful data for practices and service commissioners but may not represent the views of GPPs in other parts of the UK.