Understanding the Factors Involved in the Development and Early Implementation of “Pharmacy First” Services for the Management of Common Conditions in England
نویسندگان
1 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
2 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
3 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
4 School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
5 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
6 School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
7 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
8 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
doi
10.34172/ijhpm.9442چکیده
Background Amidst growing pressures on primary care services in England, the Pharmacy First (PF) scheme was introduced in 2024 to enable community pharmacists (CPs) to manage seven common conditions, including supplying antibiotics, where appropriate, according to patient group directions (PGDs). PF aims to increase timely access to care, reduce general practitioner (GP) workloads, and address health inequalities in terms of access to primary healthcare. This paper, part of a wider evaluation of PF, aims to describe and explain the factors affecting its development and early implementation. Methods Semi-structured (n = 31) qualitative interviews were conducted with policy-makers, representatives of national community pharmacy and general practice bodies and frontline CPs and GPs in England. Analysis was guided by a framework combining Walt and Gilson’s “Policy Triangle” and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results The study identified a range of factors shaping PF development and implementation. These included policy design complexity, stakeholder engagement, political priorities, and contextual pressures such as funding constraints and workforce shortages. Pharmacists welcomed the clinical upskilling opportunity, while GPs voiced concerns about patient safety and duplication of work. A lack of public awareness, inadequate training access (particularly for independent pharmacies and locum CPs), and poor interoperability between community pharmacy and general practice information systems further hindered rollout. Policy “layering,” with limited consideration of the implications for existing community pharmacy clinical services and the absence of a phased implementation strategy caused confusion among GPs and patients. Conclusion PF illustrates both the potential and challenges of expanding clinical roles in community pharmacy through national policy. Despite political backing and sector-wide engagement, its implementation faced structural, financial, and communication barriers. Realising its full potential requires workforce and integrated information infrastructure, sustainable funding, and clear inter-professional communication and information sharing between general practice and community pharmacy.
