SHARP 2026 Puts Pharmacy Workflow and Equitable Access on the Research Agenda

Pharmacy workflow and access to care were central themes in the published programme for the September 30, 2026 SHARP Symposium in Toronto. Organized around integrated care and health equity, the event’s research agenda is particularly relevant to community pharmacists deciding how to connect expanded services with the people and organizations around them. SHARP stands for Strengthening Health with Research in Pharmacy. Source: Ontario Pharmacists Association event page.

Key takeaways

• The programme links service design with patients’ ability to reach and navigate care.
• Workflow studies sit alongside research on primary-care access, sexual-health services and newcomer navigation.
• A conference agenda identifies questions worth following; it does not establish effect sizes, change prescribing authority or prove that an intervention works.

Two questions for everyday pharmacy

The integrated-care session included time-and-motion research on community pharmacy work and on incorporating injection-trained pharmacy technicians into vaccination workflows. Other sessions addressed links with community organizations and how research can inform scope-of-practice implementation. Source: official agenda.

The equity session included a pharmacy-based orientation module for newcomer international students, work on connecting patients to primary care, and a review of pharmacy-based sexual-health services in Canada. An afternoon plenary connected health equity with community pharmacy and opioid use disorders. These are programme topics, not findings independently established by this article. Source: official agenda.

From an interesting topic to a defensible change

Pharmasist’s interpretation is that capacity and access need to be assessed together. A faster workflow is not automatically a more accessible service, and a new service is not necessarily useful to a patient who cannot navigate the referral route. Before adopting a conference idea, teams should look for the actual methods, study population, outcomes and limitations.

This briefing draws on the organizers’ published programme, not attendance, a transcript or unpublished presentation results. It does not claim that the listed projects demonstrated particular savings or improvements.

Practice guidance for pharmacists

These are editorial suggestions for turning research questions into a local review, not new regulatory requirements:

• Map one patient journey from initial request through referral and follow-up, noting where responsibility becomes unclear.
• Ask patients where language, appointment arrangements, privacy or navigation create barriers.
• Before changing team roles, verify provincial authority, required training and local accountability.
• Read a project’s full report before adopting claims about time savings, access or clinical benefit.
• If piloting a change, choose a measurable outcome and review both staff workload and patient experience.

Full study reports and subsequent evaluations will be more informative than programme titles alone. Those publications are the next evidence to watch as the research moves toward practice.