This month’s blog from the chief scientist’s office at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) focuses on the winning abstracts at the RPS Annual Conference, held on 8 November 2024, which focused on the theme ‘Working across boundaries: embracing new opportunities and empowering excellence’.
Before I dive into these abstracts — their focus as well as the common themes — I would like to celebrate our colleagues. In 2024, we had a record-breaking 171 abstract submissions for both the research and innovative practice example abstracts. The 87 abstracts accepted into the research zone have been published as a supplement in the International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP), while the list of innovative practice examples and all posters presented are available at ‘Science and research at the 2024 RPS Conference’. Five of the research abstracts accepted were invited to deliver short oral presentations during the morning science and research.
Throughout the conference, there was a stream devoted to science and research. This included presentations from the Harrison Medal winner Ryan Donnelly from Queen’s University Belfast and the 2024 ‘Outstanding Pharmacy Early-Career Researcher award‘ (OPERA) winner Sion Scott, from the University of Leicester.
Common themes and insights
The abstracts selected and presented collectively explored distinct healthcare challenges, tools and practices, while covering several overarching themes and insights. These included:
- Importance of evidence-based resources to standardise practices and improve healthcare outcomes;
- Education, training and accessible resources as important enablers for effective healthcare delivery;
- Importance of evidence-based practices, the impact of education and resource accessibility, and the need for continuous evaluation and improvement to address evolving healthcare demands;
- Variability in the adoption of standardised resources or best practices emerged as a significant barrier;
- Importance of ongoing evaluation to adapt practices and address emerging challenges.
I would like to congratulate the oral abstract presentees:
- Bawan Ahmed (‘Relative analgesic effectiveness of pharmacological interventions in knee osteoarthritis: a component network meta-analysis‘);
- Louise Wilson (‘How do people use community pharmacies to manage sleep problems? A cross-sectional survey of pharmacy customers in England, UK‘);
- Rachel Kloss Davies (‘Exploring facilitators and barriers to scope of practice expansion with pharmacist independent prescribers (PIPs) in North Wales: a qualitative study‘);
- Rasha Abdelsalam Elshenawy (‘Trends in antibiotic use in a UK secondary care prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional retrospective study‘);
- Sarah Tinsley (‘Evaluation of the current use and impact of the UK Clinical Pharmacy Association (UKCPA) “Handbook of Perioperative Medicines“‘).
A wide range of research methods tailored to the specific healthcare inquiry were used, which may provide some insight into some of the more common methodologies used across pharmacy practice research.
Some of these research methods are:
- Systematic reviews and evidence synthesis the study on component network meta-analysis for knee osteoarthritis utilised systematic review and advanced statistical modelling to compare pharmacological interventions, emphasizing rigorous evidence aggregation;
- Quantitative analysis of trends: the study on antibiotic prescribing during COVID-19 employed quantitative metrics such as defined daily dose and the AWaRe classification system to monitor and compare usage patterns across countries, enabling data-driven insights;
- Qualitative research and surveys: the evaluation of PIPs used semi-structured interviews to explore perceptions of scope expansion and barriers, highlighting the role of qualitative methods in capturing nuanced, experiential data;
- Mixed-methods approaches: the assessment of the UKCPA ‘Handbook of Perioperative Medicines’ used both qualitative user feedback with quantitative usage statistics to evaluate its impact and identify areas for improvement;
- Practice-based observations: the investigation into community pharmacies and sleep problem advice combined practical observations of pharmacy practices with guideline analysis to assess alignment with national standards.
Megan Spearman et al.‘s abstract — ‘Service evaluation: HRT regimens prescribed for complex menopausal patient cases’ — was judged as the overall winner. This service evaluation examined HRT regimens prescribed to complex cases in a specialist menopause clinic. Of 327 evaluated appointments, HRT was recommended in 88% of cases, with various regimens tailored to menopausal phases and individual patient needs. Around one-third of patients recommended combined HRT were advised to use natural progesterone, often paired with transdermal oestrogen. Off-label use of higher doses was occasionally suggested to manage vaginal bleeding. The evaluation revealed insights into patient-centred prescribing practices but was limited by reliance on retrospective patient letters and assumptions about the enactment of GP recommendations.
The second prize went to Caroline Souter et al. for their abstract, ‘Supporting prescriber progression: a group concept mapping study’. This study was aimed to create a core prescribing framework for PIPs in NHS Scotland to support safe prescribing and career progression. Using group concept mapping, hospital pharmacists contributed statements on their prescribing activities, which were grouped into three clusters: initiating, adjusting and deprescribing. The study results showed that advanced practice activities (e.g. initiating medicines) involved greater autonomy, while foundational activities (e.g. adjusting medicines) were more guideline based. The resulting prescribing framework organises these activities by level of practice, providing a structured approach to career progression. Future work includes training needs analysis and developing professional activities for high-risk prescribing areas.
The final prize went to Rachel Kloss Davies et al. for their project ‘Exploring facilitators and barriers to scope of practice expansion with PIPs in North Wales’. This qualitative study investigated the factors influencing scope expansion among PIPs in North Wales. Intrinsic facilitators included confidence, motivation and professional fulfillment, while extrinsic facilitators involved mentorship, peer support, funding and structured training. Barriers included limited governance flexibility, insufficient time and the absence of multidisciplinary collaboration. Participants highlighted the value of role models, team support and reflective practices in enabling scope expansion. The findings suggest alignment with existing models of independent prescribing expertise but are limited by the small sample size and geographic focus.
I hope colleagues will take time to view and be inspired by the range of projects that colleagues are undertaking for the benefit of patients and the profession. As the RPS science and research team, we remain grateful to our science and research committee members, especially the conference research abstract review chairs, Simon White, Christine Bond, Cathy McKenzie, all abstract reviewers and poster judges.
For those who are new to research, the e-learning modules on research developed by the RPS and Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, are freely available. The RPS science and research team provides continued support services to members across all career stages, including assistance with interviews as well as application guidance — find out more here. Also, the RPS research funding opportunities hub is aimed to provide key opportunities for seeking funding for your research questions.
