ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Specialist medication monitoring and prescribing in primary care: case study of shared care agreements in Northern England, UK.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Yonder: Scale, shared care, AI scribes, and trust in supervision.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionShared care agreements (SCAs) in the UK enable general practitioners (GPs) in primary care to take over the monitoring and prescribing of specialist medications for patients under agreed protocols. While SCAs are intended to improve access and continuity of care, concerns regarding their implementation and adherence to safety protocols persist. This study aims to explore the mechanisms, challenges and risks associated with SCAs, focusing on their impact on patient safety and primary care capacity.
methodsA case-study approach was employed to investigate the implementation of SCAs, incorporating mixed methods to provide a comprehensive understanding. Data triangulation included document analysis of policies, cross-sectional review of medication monitoring and prescribing practices across 37 GP practices, and key informant interviews with stakeholders. Logic and dark logic models were iteratively developed to map the intended and unintended outcomes of SCAs.
resultsThe monitoring and prescribing review revealed 32.3% of prescribed medications under SCAs lacked up-to-date monitoring data, with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medications showing the highest rates of non-compliance. Interviews highlighted systemic challenges, including unclear responsibilities, inadequate patient involvement, fragmented communication between primary and secondary care, and insufficient integration of digital systems. These gaps contribute to patient safety risks, particularly for high-risk medications requiring stringent monitoring.
conclusionsSCAs hold potential for improving care continuity but face significant operational and systemic barriers that undermine their safety and effectiveness. Findings evidence the need for clearer role delineation, robust communication frameworks, enhanced patient engagement and integrated digital solutions. Policy-makers and healthcare leaders must address these challenges to ensure SCAs deliver on their promise of seamless, safe and sustainable care. Future research should focus on incorporating the perspectives of secondary care providers and pharmacists to develop more inclusive solutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.