OBJECTIVE： To provide reference for exploring the way to improve the ability of pharmaceutical care in primary pharmaceutical staff. METHODS： Questionnaire survey was conducted among pharmaceutical staff （including head of pharmacy department）， director/vice-director of hospital in charge of pharmacy， medical staff and patients from primary medical institutions in 9 provinces （regions， cities）. The results of investigation were analyzed statistically. RESULTS： A total of 77 primary medical institutions involved in the survey. Totally of 2 273 questionnaires were sent out， and 2 248 effective questionnaires were collected with effective recovery rate of 98.9％. Among effective questionnaires， 278 questionnaires were filled out by pharmaceutical staff （68 by head of pharmacy department）， 48 by director/vice-director of hospital in charge of pharmacy， 771 by medical staff and 1 151 by patients. Results of survey showed that only 140 pharmaceutical staff had obtained pharmacy practice qualification， accounting for 50.4％. The surveyed primary medical institutions provided limited pharmaceutical care projects， and the projects with high proportion were medication explanation （85.7％） and medication consultation （84.4％）. The establishment of Health Service Record Card in elderly patients （19.5％）， the development of chronic disease management （23.4％） and the development of chronic disease related pharmaceutical knowledge publicity at the primary level （37.7％） took up low proportion relatively. Overall satisfaction of surveyed medical staff to pharmaceutical care of pharmaceutical staff was general （77.2％）. Surveyed patients greatly satisfied with the attitude of pharmaceutical staff （85.5％） but overall satisfaction of them to professional knowledge of pharmaceutical staff （78.2％） was general. Surveyed pharmaceutical staff training needs in descending order were medication explanation （74.5％）， medication counseling （71.9％） and providing pharmaceutical information （64.0％）. However， the projects which had low proportion of training needs included chronic disease management （22.3％） and lifestyle guidance （27.0％）， etc. The more favorite training forms in descending order were further study in medical institution at higher level （65.4％）， expert lectures （60.1％） and training in the training base （57.9％）. CONCLUSIONS： The primary medical institutions provided limited pharmaceutical care. It is necessary to further explore and standardize pharmaceutical care criteria. The overall satisfaction of medical staff and patients on pharmaceutical care of pharmaceutical staff is not high in primary institutions， and it needs to be further improved. The related pharmacy training for primary pharmaceutical staff still needs to be strengthened， and can be conducted according to the favorite form of training so as to improve the ability of pharmaceutical care.