TY - JOUR T1 - PCRTA serendipitous carrot masquerading as stick? JF - British Journal of General Practice JO - Br J Gen Pract SP - 156 LP - 157 VL - 55 IS - 511 AU - Mark Gabbay AU - Nigel Mathers AU - Fenny Green AU - Diane Exley AU - Tina Atkins AU - Monica Gallagher AU - Dawn Brayford AU - All Brownlow Group Practice Staff Y1 - 2005/02/01 UR - http://bjgp.org/content/55/511/156.abstract N2 - High quality primary care research is undertaken in the practice setting, and the RCGP's Research Group wishes to promote and encourage this. It evolved from the RCGP Research General Practice Awards. These were developed to demonstrate the need to make research infrastructure funding available to research-active practices to support the high quality research within practice settings. The funding was limited and demand high. Recognising the shortage of these awards a number of practices urged the Research Group to consider developing accreditation for research-active practices. With the support of the Department of Health and many other key primary care R&D stakeholders, Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA) was developed to meet this need.PCRTA is a key activity for the RCGP Research Group and offers a rigorous assessment that gives recognition to best practice in the conduct of research in the practice setting. It also includes a formative component that encourages practice development. The implementation of Research Governance across the UK means that some aspects of research governance and management are now undertaken within primary care organisations. However, direct contact takes place with study participants at the practice level in many studies. PCRTA, being a practice-based assessment, provides a valuable means of ensuring that good practice cascades through the primary care research community.Our practice has been part of the Mersey Primary Care R&D Consortium since its 1999 inception. The Consortium allocated resources to support practices undertaking PCRTA, recognising that within the context of impending contract change and associated quality assessment agenda, the timing wasn't great. MG's trepidation in announcing the application to his colleagues was justified, but he hoped that his seniority (well, age anyway), and his deluded conviction that the respect attached to his academic status would see him through.The offer of Consortium support enabled us to allocate … ER -