In the UK, primary care groups and trusts (PCG/Ts), also known as primary care organizations (PCOs), are the organizations that will drive forward the primary care development agenda outlined by the government. We undertook a study to investigate the views of PCOs on the place of research in primary care development and their role as participants in the research process. The study population consisted of all PCOs in south London (n = 23). An initial structured questionnaire explored the organizations’ perceived research needs, the potential of the primary care research community to meet those needs and their current research activity. This was followed by semistructured interviews during which the participants were asked to discuss their views on the place of research in their primary care development agenda and in particular how research might inform the development of clinical skills and services in the short and medium term. The third stage of the project was an action based workshop at which general practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses developed research questions arising from the earlier stages of the study. The PCOs identified three key areas of research support: public health, health economics and nursing research expertise. Research support was needed to help them identify population health needs and to evaluate new models of care and shifting professional boundaries. In contrast to traditional primary care research, PCOs required rapid delivery of research results, particularly when these were used to inform the commissioning of services. Our study has highlighted that PCOs have a development agenda requiring rigorous research and evaluation to ensure the best outcomes for patients. The differing skills, roles and responsibilities of PCOs, PCRNs and academic departments show how partnerships might develop to further research and development in primary care.

Primary care research networks are fundamental to developing primary care-based research. A significant amount of their work is with locally organized projects. Working effectively with externally funded trials is another crucial way to inform the evidence base. There is little information on how trial teams may best work with multiple networks. We examined factors that might assist and impede collaboration between an externally funded trial and networks by exploring the systems networks used to assess externally approved trials. A large RCT was used as an example of an external trial. Networks were identified in areas where the trial could provide the intervention. Eighteen networks were sent standard letters asking for information about contacts and assessment procedures. We examined how long it took to identify a liaison person, what processes were used to assess the trial and how long these processes took. Sixteen of 18 networks (89%) agreed to work with the trial. Most networks provided initial information within a month of being contacted. There was no standard process for approving externally funded trials. The time taken to gain final approval varied from one week to three months. There is enthusiasm among networks to work with externally funded studies. It is feasible and can be successful, but current systems for approval are variable and often time-consuming. A defined turnaround time and central mechanism for approving trials could result in greater engagement of external trials with networks and an increased likelihood of a successful research.