| · Practice research (3)
· Birdsgrove House
· Adverse event reporting
· The profession
· The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
Practice research
Green Light Pharmacy
From Ms E. Mills, MRPharmS and others
We were pleased to read the article “Research is not just for
academics” (PJ, 28 May, p644) by John Wilson. It is an excellent
example of how any pharmacist can be involved in useful research. Indeed,
practitioners are in an ideal position to develop research ideas.
One of the barriers to this, as Mr Wilson rightly points out, may be
the relentless pressure that community pharmacists are under, and the
isolation in which most community pharmacists work.
Green Light Pharmacy is a community pharmacy which also acts as a primary
care research centre. It is funded by North Central London Research Consortium — NoCLoR
(a primary care research network) and managed by practising pharmacists.
Our remit is to promote research in community pharmacy.
As well as conducting research projects ourselves, we run research study
days for community pharmacists (and locums) to provide them with knowledge
of different research methods and to show how these can be used in pharmacy
practice research.
Pharmacists attending these workshops are encouraged to identify a research
question. We then provide them with the support to turn these questions
into viable research ideas. This support might include: providing research
expertise to develop the idea; supplying links with academia; identifying
sources of funding; assisting with ethics approval/research governance;
or allowing the opportunity for pharmacists to discuss their ideas among
themselves. This support is open to any community pharmacist working
in north London.
We believe this model will encourage more community pharmacists to participate
in research. We also believe that research should be part of the role
of the community pharmacist and not something undertaken by a disparate
few. This is essential for the development of an evidence base for the
practice of community pharmacy.
We invite any community pharmacist interested in undertaking research
in north London, or those from any network striving to increase participation
in community pharmacy research, to contact us via www.greenlightpharmacy.com
Elizabeth Mills
Timothy O’Donoghue
John Foreman
Alistair Murray
Green Light Pharmacy, London
Clarifying ethical approval
From Mr A. J. Mackridge, MRPharmS
I write in response to the Broad
spectrum article by John Wilson (PJ,
28 May, p644). While I applaud his research efforts and his encouragement
of research in practice, it should be pointed out that the advice given
to him regarding ethical approval is incorrect.
The Governance Arrangement for NHS Research Ethics Committees (GAfREC)
para 3.1(c) states that ethical approval is required from the NHS REC
for any research involving “access to data, organs or other bodily
material of past and present NHS patients”.
Since NHS prescriptions would fall into this category, it is clear that
NHS REC approval should be sought before undertaking any study of this
type.
Regardless of whether one supports the need for ethical approval in these
small studies, it is clear that the guidelines require an application
to be sought.
I hope that this boundary does not limit the potential for practitioners
to undertake research in the workplace. Further details can be obtained
from the Central Office for Research and Ethics Committees (www.corec.org.uk).
Adam Mackridge
Wythall, Worcestershire
Data disclosure
From Mr J. A. Tweed, MRPharmS
I applaud the attempts by John Wilson (PJ, 28 May, p644) to perform research
using the available material in community pharmacy. Using patient data
without the agreement of the patient and without putting the proposed research
to an ethics committee may cause problems. Asking one member is not the
same as seeking approval from a whole committee.
I am not sure who “owns” the data being used and whether permission
to use it is required, but it would be useful if there was a learned opinion
on whether it is legal to use these data.
In the light of the paper by Morecroft et al (ibid, p650), researchers
must be sure that they adhere to the rules. Nevertheless, good and innovative
research should be encouraged.
Jack Tweed
Nottingham
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal