Abstract Purpose: The pharmacology and clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education during the undergraduate medical curriculum of NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal, was changed from a traditional programme (i.e. discipline-based, lectures) to a problem-based learning (PBL) programme (i.e. integrated, case-based discussions) without an increase in teaching hours. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this change improved the prescribing competencies of final-year medical students. Methods: Final-year students from both programmes (2015 and 2019) were invited to complete a validated prescribing assessment and questionnaire. The assessment comprised 24 multiple-choice questions in three subdomains (working mechanism, side-effects and interactions/contraindications), and five clinical case scenarios of common diseases. The questionnaire focused on self-reported prescribing confidence, preparedness for future prescribing task and education received. Results: In total, 36 (22%) final-year medical students from the traditional programme and 54 (23%) from the PBL programme participated. Overall, students in the PBL programme had significantly higher knowledge scores than students in the traditional programme (76% (SD 9) vs 67% (SD 15); p = 0.002). Additionally, students in the PBL programme made significantly fewer inappropriate therapy choices (p = 0.023) and fewer erroneous prescriptions than did students in the traditional programme (p = 0.27). Students in the PBL programme felt more confident in prescribing, felt better prepared for prescribing as junior doctor and completed more drug prescriptions during their medical training. Conclusion: Changing from a traditional programme to an integrated PBL programme in pharmacology and CPT during the undergraduate medical curriculum may improve the prescribing competencies of final-year students.
LINK
Fully aware of the unusual timing of submitting a commentary 30 years later, we want to reflect on the June edition of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP) (1993), which featured four research articles on education in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) written by our former professor, Theo de Vries, and an editorial highlighting the imperative to improve CPT education, specifically by paying more attention to rational drug prescribing for common diseases.1–5 This plea was illustrated by five cartoons (Figure 1) and formed the basis for the World Health Organization's (WHO) Guide to Good Prescribing and its 6-step. The first four cartoons portrayed the suboptimal state of CPT education as a metaphorical ‘Clinical Pharmacology Continent’ (CPC) and a ‘General Practitioners Island’ (GPI), with a large gap between them. While clinical pharmacologists investigated new drug therapies, general practitioners frequently found themselves unprepared when making rational treatment decisions.1 The final cartoon introduced a solution: problembased learning education, depicted as a bridge connecting the continent and the island. Over the past 30 years, considerable progress has been achieved in bridging the gap. Therefore, we intend to illustrate this transformation with a similar cartoon (Figure 2).
DOCUMENT
Aims: Prescribing errors among junior doctors are common in clinical practice because many lack prescribing competence after graduation. This is in part due to inadequate education in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) in the undergraduate medical curriculum. To support CP&T education, it is important to determine which drugs medical undergraduates should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision by the time they graduate. Currently, there is no such list with broad-based consensus. Therefore, the aim was to reach consensus on a list of essential drugs for undergraduate medical education in the Netherlands. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi study was conducted among pharmacists, medical specialists, junior doctors and pharmacotherapy teachers from all eight Dutch academic hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate whether it was essential that medical graduates could prescribe specific drugs included on a preliminary list. Drugs for which ≥80% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed were included in the final list. Results: In all, 42 (65%) participants completed the two Delphi rounds. A total of 132 drugs (39%) from the preliminary list and two (3%) newly proposed drugs were included. Conclusions: This is the first Delphi consensus study to identify the drugs that Dutch junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. This list can be used to harmonize and support the teaching and assessment of CP&T. Moreover, this study shows that a Delphi method is suitable to reach consensus on such a list, and could be used for a European list.
MULTIFILE
