Perspectives on peer impact group working as part of a leadership programme for pharmacy professionals in England and Wales

Abstract Introduction Communities of practice in a healthcare context can take many forms, usually aiming to foster peer learning and/or support through the creation of ‘informal learning organisations.’1 Since 2016, the Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education (CPPE) has provided three residential leadership training programmes for pharmacy professionals. Each programme included the formation of impact groups (n = 6 each). Impact groups worked closely together to present and resolve leadership challenges and problems, with learners drawing from their own professional experience to support peer-learning. Groups worked closely together throughout the nine-month programme with the additional aim of facilitating ongoing communities of practice. Evidence is currently lacking to understand the contribution of impact group participation to leadership development. Aim This study aimed to explore the perspectives of programme alumni around impact group formation and working and the extent to which their impact groups were maintained over time. Methods Eligible programme alumni (n = 326) received a cross-sectional evaluation survey to complete online, including a section on impact groups. Respondents rated their agreement (from 0–10, where 0 = not at all and 10 = completely) with six statements related to their impact group participation. Responses were analysed with descriptive statistics (mean, range), with t-tests used to calculate differences between programmes. Results Responses were received from 30 participants from two of the three programmes, an overall response rate of 9%. Respondents reported completing either Chief Pharmacist’s Development Programme (CPDP: 2016–2019, n = 16) or Chief Pharmaceutical Officer’s Pharmacy Leaders Development Programme (CPhO’S PLDP: 2022–2024, n = 14). Impact groups received favourable ratings across all but one category. The highest rating was observed for recommending impact groups as part of leadership development programmes for pharmacy professionals (mean: 9.4 95% CI: 9.0–9.8, range 4–10). Second highest rated was considering their impact group psychologically safe (mean: 9.3, 95% CI: 8.7–9.8, range 4–10), with CPhO’s PLDP respondents rating this significantly higher (p = 0.03). High ratings were also observed around respondents being able to contribute to their impact group, finding it a useful way to learn and applying learning to their practice. The lowest rating was around impact groups maintaining regular contact post-programme (mean: 5.9, 95% CI: 4.3–7.8, range 0–10), with those in the earlier programme (completed six to nine years prior to the survey) less likely to still be in contact than those completing the more recent programme (one to three years before the survey, p = 0.04). Conclusion Impact groups were well received by respondents in relation to both peer learning and support. Findings here support the literature on the role of creating a psychologically safe environment in challenging work and learning situations.2 There was also evidence that impact groups were less likely to maintain contact over time. This study was limited by a low response rate and under-representation of pharmacy technician leaders. The survey did not capture reasons underlying the ratings given to each statement, which might be addressed by future qualitative data collection. Future work could look at approaches to supporting ongoing communities of practice, including the possible formation of new impact groups, given their perceived value to pharmacy leaders.