Professional and governmental policy on community pharmacy : a 10-year policy review and comparative analysis (2008-2017)

Paloumpi, Evgenia and Ozieranski, Piotr and Watson, Margaret C. and Jones, Matthew D. (2023) Professional and governmental policy on community pharmacy : a 10-year policy review and comparative analysis (2008-2017). Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy, 11. 100298. ISSN 2667-2766 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsop.2023.100298)

[thumbnail of Paloumpi-etal-ERCSP-2023-Professional-and-governmental-policy-on-community-pharmacy]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Paloumpi_etal_ERCSP_2023_Professional_and_governmental_policy_on_community_pharmacy.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo
Download (270kB)| Preview

Abstract

Background: An increased role for community pharmacy might bring considerable value to healthcare systems, for example by relieving workload elsewhere in primary care through the provision of medicines-related services. This requires support from appropriate policy. Objective(s): To explore the representation of community pharmacy in governmental and professional health policies in England (2008–2017) using the Walt and Gilson policy framework. Methods: Relevant policies were identified using a systematic search. The content of these policies was analysed using thematic analysis. The transparency of evidence use during the policymaking process was scored in four keys areas using a recognised tool: diagnosis; proposal; implementation; testing and evaluation. Key actors involved in the development of each policy were summarised. Results: 18 governmental policies and 7 pharmacy profession policies were included. Convergence between governmental and professional policy content was identified in 6 areas: healthcare workforce; behaviour and collaborations; utilising technology; urgent care; long-term health conditions; service provision. Divergence was identified in 5 areas: enquiry-driven culture; quality in healthcare; cancer care; mental health care; commissioning. Professional policies were less transparent in their use of evidence and had less documentation of the involvement of key actors, such as professionals and the public. Conclusions: The profession has limited influence and/or representation in governmental policies. This may be because professional policies did not reflect concerns expressed in governmental policies and had low credibility due to limited stakeholder involvement and transparency about evidence use.

CORE (COnnecting REpositories)