Research development needs of pharmacists in the North of England: a cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Research drives safe and cost-effective practice, innovation and quality care. The national workforce directive calls for integration of research into healthcare roles1; however, pharmacist research is typically undertaken by a minority of highly motivated individuals2. Inclusion of research learning outcomes in all three Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) curricula make it an essential component of pharmacist practice throughout career development; however, prospective consultant pharmacists may lack confidence in demonstrating capability3. Aim To describe research experience, perceptions of barriers and enablers, and confidence with meeting RPS research learning outcomes in pharmacists across all sectors and stages of career development in the North of England. Methods A cross-sectional survey, designed and piloted using Jisc Online Surveys, was circulated by email to Health Education England (HEE) North School of Pharmacy and Medicines Optimisation (SoPMO)* mailing list subscribers and posted on social media for completion during March 2023. Data were collected on demographics, research qualifications and research experience. Respondents were asked to prioritise barriers and enablers from existing literature according to personal experience. Confidence with meeting research learning outcomes in the Post-registration Foundation, Core Advanced and Consultant Pharmacist curricula was self-assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were performed using Microsoft Excel®. The NHS Health Research Authority tool confirmed ethical approval was not required for this service evaluation. A Data Protection Impact Assessment was completed. *now North West SoPMO and North East and Yorkshire SoPMO, NHS England Workforce Training and Education Results There were 250 responses from pharmacists in all seven North of England Integrated Care Systems. Respondents had been practising for a median of 14 years. 54 (22%) had a postgraduate qualification with a research component and 162 (65%) had experience of research and/or quality improvement. 164 (67%) had no protected time for research and 200 (80%) did not routinely discuss research during annual appraisal. Lack of time within working hours was the most frequently reported ‘top three’ barrier (171, 68%), followed by prioritisation of clinical duties (128, 51%) and lack of knowledge (79, 32%). Key enablers were protected time (158, 63%) and access to mentorship (154, 62%). The proportion who self-assessed as ‘confident’ or ‘really confident’ that they could provide evidence to demonstrate all research learning outcome(s) in each curriculum was 106 (42%) for Post-registration Foundation; 52 (21%) for Core Advanced and 22 (9%) for Consultant Pharmacist. Discussion/Conclusion Despite 85% of respondents practising for 5 years or more, confidence in meeting the most fundamental research learning outcome in the Post-registration Foundation curriculum was low and decreased across the continuum of practice. Barriers and enablers were perceived around capability (knowledge and skills), opportunity (protected time; prioritisation of clinical duties) and motivation (access to mentorship). Limitations include a potential over-estimation of confidence, due to pharmacists with research experience being more likely to complete the survey, and the use of self-reporting, which relies on respondent introspection. Initial Education and Training (IET) reforms will better equip future pharmacists for research; however, coordinated strategies, simultaneously addressing identified barriers, are required to bridge the skill gap for much of the existing workforce.