BACKGROUND In recent years, UK health policy makers have responded to a GP shortage by introducing measures to support increased healthcare delivery by practitioners from a wider range of backgrounds. AIM To ascertain the composition of the primary care workforce in England at a time when policy changes affecting deployment of different practitioner types are being introduced. DESIGN AND SETTING This study was a comparative analysis of workforce data reported to NHS Digital by GP practices in England. METHOD Statistics are reported using practice-level data from the NHS Digital June 2019 data extract. Because of the role played by Health Education England (HEE) in training and increasing the skills of a healthcare workforce that meets the needs of each region, the analysis compares average workforce composition across the 13 HEE regions in England RESULTS The workforce participation in terms of full-time equivalent of each staff group across HEE regions demonstrates regional variation. Differences persist when expressed as mean full-time equivalent per thousand patients. Despite policy changes, most workers are employed in long-established primary care roles, with only a small proportion of newer types of practitioner, such as pharmacists, paramedics, physiotherapists, and physician associates. CONCLUSION This study provides analysis of a more detailed and complete primary care workforce dataset than has previously been available in England. In describing the workforce composition at this time, the study provides a foundation for future comparative analyses of changing practitioner deployment before the introduction of primary care networks, and for evaluating outcomes and costs that may be associated with these changes. ©The Authors.BACKGROUND GPs are rarely actively involved in healthcare provision for children and young people (CYP) with life-limiting conditions (LLCs). This raises problems when these children develop minor illness or require management of other chronic diseases. find more AIM To investigate the association between GP attendance patterns and hospital urgent and emergency care use. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective cohort study using a primary care data source (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) in England. The cohort numbered 19 888. METHOD CYP aged 0-25 years with an LLC were identified using Read codes (primary care) or International Classification of Diseases 10 th Revision (ICD-10) codes (secondary care). Emergency inpatient admissions and accident and emergency (A&E) attendances were separately analysed using multivariable, two-level random intercept negative binomial models with key variables of consistency and regularity of GP attendances. RESULTS Face-to-face GP surgery consultations reduced, from a mean of 7.12 per person year in 2000 to 4.43 in 2015. Those consulting the GP less regularly had 15% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 10% to 20%) more emergency admissions and 5% more A&E visits (95% CI = 1% to 10%) than those with more regular consultations. CYP who had greater consistency of GP seen had 10% (95% CI = 6% to 14%) fewer A&E attendances but no significant difference in emergency inpatient admissions than those with lower consistency. CONCLUSION There is an association between GP attendance patterns and use of urgent secondary care for CYP with LLCs, with less regular GP attendance associated with higher urgent secondary healthcare use. This is an important area for further investigation and warrants the attention of policymakers and GPs, as the number of CYP with LLCs living in the community rises. ©The Authors.BACKGROUND Breathlessness is a common presentation in primary care. AIM To assess the long-term risk of diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, ischaemic heart disease (IHD), and early mortality in patients with undiagnosed breathlessness. DESIGN AND SETTING Matched cohort study using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. METHOD Adults with first-recorded breathlessness between 1997 and 2010 and no prior diagnostic or prescription record for IHD or a respiratory disease (‘exposed’ cohort) were matched to individuals with no record of breathlessness (‘unexposed’ cohort). Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic and comorbidity characteristics. RESULTS In total, 75 698 patients (the exposed cohort) were followed for a median of 6.1 years, and more than one-third subsequently received a diagnosis of COPD, asthma, or IHD. In those who remained undiagnosed after 6 months, there were increased long-term risks of all three diagnoses compared with those in the unexposed cohoeneral Practice 2020.BACKGROUND Many UK GP practices now employ a practice pharmacist, but little is known about how GPs and pharmacists work together to optimise medications for complex patients with multimorbidity. AIM To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on collaborative working within the context of optimising medications for patients with multimorbidity. DESIGN AND SETTING A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists working in the West of England, Northern England, and Scotland. METHOD Thirteen GPs and 10 pharmacists were sampled from practices enrolled in the 3D trial (a complex intervention for people with multimorbidity). Participants’ views on collaborative working were explored with interviews that were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Saturation of data was achieved with no new insights arising from later interviews. RESULTS GPs from surgeries that employed a pharmacist tended to value their expertise more than GPs who had not worked with one. Three key themes were identified resources and competing priorities; responsibility; and professional boundaries. GPs valued pharmacist recommendations that were perceived to improve patient safety, as opposed to those that were technical and unlikely to benefit the patient. Pharmacists who were not known to GPs felt undervalued and wanted feedback from the GPs about their recommendations, particularly those that were not actioned. CONCLUSION A good working relationship between the GP and pharmacist, where each profession understood the other’s skills and expertise, was key. The importance of face-to-face meetings and feedback should be considered in future studies of interdisciplinary interventions, and by GP practices that employ pharmacists and other allied health professionals. © British Journal of General Practice 2020.