The study aimed to conduct a follow-up of all broad-based training (BBT) trainees who participated in the original evaluation completed in 2017. The follow-up study explored the impact of BBT on career decisions, sustained benefits and unintended disadvantages of the programme, and views on the future of training.

Scoping interviews informed the design of an online survey. The interview transcripts were analysed thematically. The survey was piloted with six volunteers and sent out to all former BBT trainees. Data from the survey were transferred to Excel and SPSS for analysis. The open-text comments on the survey were subject to a thematic content analysis.

Participants were working in general practice, paediatrics, psychiatry or medicine.

Eight former BBT trainees participated in the scoping interviews. Interview participants were selected to ensure a diversity of current specialties and to represent all three BBT cohorts. All former BBT trainees were invited to complete the survey (n=118) and 70 replied.

The benefits of BBT were sustained over time: participants were confident in their career decisions, took a holistic approach to care and capitalised on their experiences in other specialties in their current roles. A minority of trainees also experienced temporary challenges when they joined a specialty training programme after completing the BBT. Whatever their specialty, experience in core medicine, paediatrics, psychiatry and general practice was valued. Disadvantages were short-lived (catching up on transition specialty training) or affected a minority (impact on sense of belonging).

The BBT programme supported the development of generalist doctors. Greater attention needs to be given to training secondary care doctors who take a holistic view of the patient and navigate their specialist care.

Pharmacists are increasingly joining the general practice skill-mix. Research is still in relative infancy, but barriers and facilitators to their integration are emerging, as well as indications that pharmacists’ skillset remain underutilised. This study explores first-hand experiences and perspectives among general practice teams of the processes that underpin the effective integration and sustained contribution of pharmacists in general practice.

This research employed a qualitative case study approach involving general practice teams in Wales. Data were collected from eight general practices where each practice represented one case study. Data were collected via online interviews (one-to-one or group) and written feedback. Data were pattern coded and analysed thematically through a constant comparative approach. Data interpretations were confirmed with participants and wider general practice teams.

Eight general practice teams across Wales (comprising combinations of practice and business managers, general practitioners (GPs) and general practice pharmacists) represented eight case studies. Cases were required to have had experience of working with a general practice pharmacist.

Data were yielded from five practice managers, two GPs, three general practice pharmacists and a business manager. A total of 3 hours and 2 min of interview data was recorded as well as 2038 words of written feedback. Three foundations to pharmacists’ effective contribution to general practice were identified: defining the role (through identifying the right pharmacist, mapping skillset to demand and utilising the increasing need for specialist skills), appropriate infrastructure and workforce review, and an appropriate employment model.

Pharmacists are becoming increasingly critical to the general practice skill-mix and utilisation of their specialist skillset is crucial. This paper identifies how to enable the effective integration and sustained contribution of pharmacists to general practice.