Service evaluation of the research outputs for 23/24 at a large London teaching hospital

Abstract Introduction The recent report of a UK survey of pharmacy professionals’ involvement in research1 found only small numbers of the pharmacy workforce are currently undertaking research. A number of reasons for this are identified and the report contains a list of recommendations to support the embedding of research into pharmacy careers.1 Within the pharmacy department at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (KCH) all research proposals are presented at the pharmacy research and audit group and a log is kept of department research outputs by the clinical academic research lead. The analysis of this data will provide a benchmark. For the purposes of this study, research encompasses audit, service evaluation and research studies as defined by the Health Research Authority defining research table.2 Aim To identify, over the financial year 23/24, the frequency of different types of research outputs from the pharmacy department at KCH broken down by output type, specialty and role. Methods Regular emails were sent April 23 – March 24 to remind staff to identify and share research outputs with the clinical academic research lead. Outputs received were circulated by newsletter to encourage and motivate others. The clinical academic research lead engaged with individual pharmacy teams throughout the year to encourage and support research outputs. Research output data was collected, April 23 – March 24, on an Excel spreadsheet including staff name, role, specialty, type of research output and date the output was completed. Research outputs were categorised into published articles, published abstracts, attendance at conference, abstracts presented at conference and presentations at conference or national webinar. Ethics was not required as the study is defined as a service evaluation. Results There were a total of 89 research outputs by the pharmacy department across the year. These were broken down into published articles (20), published abstracts (16), attendance at conference (24), abstracts presented at conference (26) and presentations at conference or national webinar (3). The two specialty teams who produced or took part in the most research outputs over the year were critical care (15) and liver (11). Consultants pharmacists were involved in the most research activity (32) followed closely by principal pharmacists (26), specialist pharmacists (25) and the deputy chief pharmacists (19). Pharmacy technicians, pharmacists taking part in the STEP programme and non-registered pharmacy staff scored the least in terms of research activity relative to size of staff group. Consultant pharmacists and principle pharmacists were the groups that published the most articles (8 each). Discussion and conclusion The trust implemented a new electronic patient record system during the year which may have impacted the number of research outputs. A limitation to this study is that there are likely to be unrecorded research outputs. The data broken down by specialty and role will allow the pharmacy management group and clinical academic research lead to support, engage and motivate in those areas to allow staff to have the time, skills and guidance to carry out research activities. The results can be used by other healthcare organisations to benchmark against. References 1. NHS England, Report of a UK survey of pharmacy professionals’ involvement in research (2024). Available at NHS England » Report of a UK survey of pharmacy professionals’ involvement in research, accessed 18/04/24. 2. Health research authority, Defining Research Table (2022). Available at DefiningResearchTable_Oct2022.pdf (hra-decisiontools.org.uk), accessed 18/04/24.