National recruitment scheme for pre-registration pharmacist training in England and Wales: a mixed method evaluation of experiences of applicant pharmacy students

Clinical pharmacists in primary care general practices: evaluation of current workforce and their distribution

BACKGROUND

General practices in primary care across England are increasingly employing clinical pharmacists to help tackle the workforce crisis and alleviate pressure. Clinical pharmacists can provide administrative and clinical duties, including non-medical prescribing, advice on polypharmacy and medicines optimisation. The aim of this study was to investigate the distribution of clinical pharmacists in general practice across England, and explore the relationship between the distribution and regional demography.

METHODS

This study used publicly available government database from various sources pertaining to primary care general practice workforce and population demographics of England. The number and distribution of pharmacists working within general practices in England were analysed and compared across practices considering general practitioner (GP), nurse and patient population in the practices, patients age ≥ 65 years and over and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores.

RESULTS

Twenty two percentage (1469 of 6674) of practices in England were found to have access to a clinical pharmacist, equating to 1358 full-time equivalent (FTE) pharmacists and a mean pharmacist FTE of 10.07 (95% CI 8.40, 11.75, SD = 9.84) per Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). A significant relationship between pharmacist FTE and the number of patients 65 years and older [r (132) = 0.75, P < 0.001)] was observed; however, the distribution was not related to population deprivation scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one in five general practices in England have access to a clinical pharmacist. Further research is needed to ensure wider and equitable distribution based on workforce needs and practice population demography.

National recruitment system for pre-registration pharmacist trainees in England and Wales: context, process and outcomes

In England and Wales, a new National Recruitment Scheme (NRS) for pre-registration pharmacists was introduced in 2017. The NRS replaced the traditional method of employer-led recruitment or the national recruitment system previously limited to some hospital training programmes. NRS uses assessment methodology involving Multiple-Mini Interviews, Situational Judgement Tests and numeracy skills in ranking and appointing candidates to their preferred training providers through a centralised procedure. This commentary will describe the background, assessment methodology, outcomes of preliminary evaluations and priority research areas for the future in the context of the NRS.

How do pharmacy students select their pre-registration training providers? A mixed methods evaluation of the national recruitment scheme in England and Wales

Objectives

A national pre-registration pharmacist recruitment scheme, which replaces the local recruitment models, was introduced in England and Wales in 2017. This study aimed to explore pharmacy students' behaviour and associated factors in their selection of pre-registration training programmes.

Methods

A mixed-method study using (a) analysis of data from all applicants (n = 2694) of the national recruitment scheme, (b) an online survey and (c) a virtual focus group was undertaken. Survey and focus group questions were developed based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Descriptive and inferential analysis of quantitative data was undertaken using Stata software. Qualitative data from focus groups and responses from the open-ended questions were analysed using framework technique.

Key findings

A vast majority of applicants (n = 2182, 83.9%) selected a hospital training programme as their first ranked preference, with the rest opting for community pharmacy. Urban areas, particularly London, were most popular geographically. A total of 307 survey responses were returned. Long-term career aspirations, followed by geographical factors, were rated most highly in applicants' decision-making. Qualitative data from survey and focus group demonstrated information about programmes/employers, perceived opportunity for skills development and aspiration towards a career path as key contributory factors in their decision-making.

Conclusions

Secondary care was the most desirable destination for pharmacy students to undertake early career training. The clinical roles and career opportunities in community pharmacy needs to be promoted as there is a risk that community pharmacy training programme places may be seen as a ‘left over’ opportunity for less competitive candidates to uptake.