LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Many doctors take on prescribing responsibilities shortly after they graduate [1, 2], but fnal-year medical students not only feel insecure about prescribing, but also lack adequate knowledge and skills to prescribe rationally and safely [3, 4]. To address this public health concern, the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (EACPT) recommended that education in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) in Europe should be modernized and harmonized [5]. The frst step towards harmonization was taken in 2018 when CP&T experts reached consensus on the key learning outcomes for CP&T education in Europe [6]. The next step was to assess these outcomes in a uniform examination during undergraduate medical training [7–9]. The Prescribing Safety Assessment (United Kingdom) and the Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment (The Netherlands) are currently the only national CP&T examinations [10–13]. Implementing these examinations in other European countries is difcult because of related costs and diferences in available drugs and guidelines. Therefore, in 2019, together with nine European universities, the EACPT, and the World Health Organization Europe, we started a 3-year Erasmus+-project (2019–1-NL01-KA203-060,492) to develop, test and implement an online examination on safe prescribing for medical schools in Europe: “The European Prescribing Exam” (EuroPE+, https://www.prescribingeducation.eu/). The aim of The European Prescribing Exam is to ensure that medical students in Europe graduate with prescribing competencies for safe and efective clinical practice. During the frst stage of the project, we established that EuroPE+ should focus not only on safe prescribing (e.g. contraindications, interactions) but also on broader aspects of CP&T (e.g. deprescribing, communication, personalized medicine). We identifed 43 main learning objectives and 299 attainment targets, based on previous European studies of CP&T education and the Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment [6, 14, 15]. The attainment targets concern eight drug groups that junior doctors should be confdent about prescribing because these drugs are commonly prescribed or are a major cause of adverse events [16]
MULTIFILE
Aim: In-hospital prescribing errors (PEs) may result in patient harm, prolonged hospitalization and hospital (re)admission. These events are associated with pressure on healthcare services and significant healthcare costs. To develop targeted interventions to prevent or reduce in-hospital PEs, identification and understanding of facilitating and protective factors influencing in-hospital PEs in current daily practice is necessary, adopting a Safety-II perspective. The aim of this systematic review was to create an overview of all factors reported in the literature, both protective and facilitating, as influencing in-hospital PEs. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE.com and the Cochrane Library (via Wiley) were searched, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, for studies that identified factors influencing in-hospital PEs. Both qualitative and quantitative study designs were included. Results: Overall, 19 articles (6 qualitative and 13 quantitative studies) were included and 40 unique factors influencing in-hospital PEs were identified. These factors were categorized into five domains according to the Eindhoven classification (‘organization-related’, ‘prescriber-related’, ‘prescription-related’, ‘technologyrelated’ and ‘unclassified’) and visualized in an Ishikawa (Fishbone) diagram. Most of the identified factors (87.5%; n = 40) facilitated in-hospital PEs. The most frequently identified facilitating factor (39.6%; n = 19) was ‘insufficient (drug) knowledge, prescribing skills and/or experience of prescribers’. Conclusion: The findings of this review could be used to identify points of engagement for future intervention studies and help hospitals determine how to optimize prescribing. A multifaceted intervention, targeting multiple factors might help to circumvent the complex challenge of in-hospital PEs.
MULTIFILE
Abstract Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged healthcare globally. An acute increase in the number of hospitalized patients has neces‑ sitated a rigorous reorganization of hospital care, thereby creating circumstances that previously have been identifed as facilitating prescribing errors (PEs), e.g. a demanding work environment, a high turnover of doctors, and prescrib‑ ing beyond expertise. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients may be at risk of PEs, potentially resulting in patient harm. We determined the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for PEs in post–COVID-19 patients, hospitalized during the frst wave of COVID-19 in the Netherlands, 3months after discharge. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study recruited patients who visited a post-COVID-19 outpatient clinic of an academic hospital in the Netherlands, 3months after COVID-19 hospitalization, between June 1 and October 1 2020. All patients with appointments were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence and severity of PEs were assessed in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for PEs. Results: Ninety-eight patients were included, of whom 92% had ≥1 PE and 8% experienced medication-related harm requiring an immediate change in medication therapy to prevent detoriation. Overall, 68% of all identifed PEs were made during or after the COVID-19 related hospitalization. Multivariate analyses identifed ICU admission (OR 6.08, 95% CI 2.16–17.09) and a medical history of COPD / asthma (OR 5.36, 95% CI 1.34–21.5) as independent risk fac‑ tors for PEs. Conclusions: PEs occurred frequently during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Patients admitted to an ICU during COVID19 hospitalization or who had a medical history of COPD / asthma were at risk of PEs. These risk factors can be used to identify high-risk patients and to implement targeted interventions. Awareness of prescribing safely is crucial to prevent harm in this new patient population.
MULTIFILE
The European Open Platform for Prescribing Education (EurOP2 E) seeks to improve and harmonize European clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education by facilitating international collaboration and sharing problem-based, online, open educational resources. The COVID-19 pandemic forced teachers to switch to virtual modalities, highlighting the need for high-quality online teaching materials. The goal of this study was to establish the online problem-based teaching resources needed to sustain prescribing education during the pandemic and thereafter. A nominal group technique study was conducted with prescribing teachers from 15 European countries. Results were analyzed through thematic analysis. In four meetings, 20 teachers from 15 countries proposed and ranked 35 teaching materials. According to the participants, the most necessary problem-based-online teaching materials related to three overarching themes. Related to learning outcomes for CPT, participants proposed creating prescription scenarios, including materials focusing on background knowledge and resources on personalized medicine and topical/ethical issues such as the prescription’s impact on planetary health. Second, related to teaching, they proposed online case discussions, gamification and decision support systems. Finally, in relation to faculty development, they recommend teacher courses, a repository of reusable exam questions and harmonized formularies. Future work will aim to collaboratively produce such materials.
DOCUMENT
Aims: Prescribing medication is a complex process that, when done inappropriately, can lead to adverse drug events, resulting in patient harm and hospital admissions. Worldwide cost is estimated at 42 billion USD each year. Despite several efforts in the past years, medication-related harm has not declined. The aim was to determine whether a prescriber-focussed participatory action intervention, initiated by a multidisciplinary pharmacotherapy team, is able to reduce the number of in-hospital prescriptions containing ≥1 prescribing error (PE), by identifying and reducing challenges in appropriate prescribing. Methods: A prospective single-centre before- and after study was conducted in an academic hospital in the Netherlands. Twelve clinical wards (medical, surgical, mixed and paediatric) were recruited. Results: Overall, 321 patients with a total of 2978 prescriptions at baseline were compared with 201 patients with 2438 prescriptions postintervention. Of these, m456 prescriptions contained ≥1 PE (15.3%) at baseline and 357 prescriptions contained ≥1 PEs (14.6%) postintervention. PEs were determined in multidisciplinary consensus. On some study wards, a trend toward a decreasing number of PEs was observed. The intervention was associated with a nonsignificant difference in PEs (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.83–1.10), which was unaltered after correction. The most important identified challenges were insufficient knowledge beyond own expertise, unawareness of guidelines and a heavy workload. Conclusion: The tailored interventions developed with and implemented by stakeholders led to a statistically nonsignificant reduction in inappropriate in-hospital prescribing after a 6-month intervention period. Our prescriber-focussed participatory action intervention identified challenges in appropriate in-hospital prescribing on prescriber- and organizational level.
MULTIFILE
Abstract Purpose The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of including the Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment (DNPA) in the medical curriculum on the level and development of prescribing knowledge and skills of junior doctors. The secondary aim was to evaluate the relationship between the curriculum type and the prescribing competence of junior doctors. Methods We re-analysed the data of a longitudinal study conducted in 2016 involving recently graduated junior doctors from 11 medical schools across the Netherlands and Belgium. Participants completed three assessments during the first year after graduation (around graduation (+/−4 weeks), and 6 months, and 1 year after graduation), each of which contained 35 multiple choice questions (MCQs) assessing knowledge and three clinical case scenarios assessing skills. Only one medical school used the DNPA in its medical curriculum; the other medical schools used conventional means to assess prescribing knowledge and skills. Five medical schools were classified as providing solely theoretical clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education; the others provided both theoretical and practical CPT education (mixed curriculum). Results Of the 1584 invited junior doctors, 556 (35.1%) participated, 326 (58.6%) completed the MCQs and 325 (58.5%) the clinical case scenarios in all three assessments. Junior doctors whose medical curriculum included the DNPA had higher knowledge scores than other junior doctors (76.7% [SD 12.5] vs. 67.8% [SD 12.6], 81.8% [SD 11.1] vs. 76.1% [SD 11.1], 77.0% [12.1] vs. 70.6% [SD 14.0], p<0.05 for all three assessments, respectively). There was no difference in skills scores at the moment of graduation (p=0.110), but after 6 and 12 months junior doctors whose medical curriculum included the DNPA had higher skills scores (both p<0.001). Junior doctors educated with a mixed curriculum had significantly higher scores for both knowledge and skills than did junior doctors educated with a theoretical curriculum (p<0.05 in all assessments). Conclusion Our findings suggest that the inclusion of the knowledge focused DNPA in the medical curriculum improves the prescribing knowledge, but not the skills, of junior doctors at the moment of graduation. However, after 6 and 12 months, both the knowledge and skills were higher in the junior doctors whose medical curriculum included the DNPA. A curriculum that provides both theoretical and practical education seems to improve both prescribing knowledge and skills relative to a solely theoretical curriculum.
MULTIFILE
Aim: Improvement and harmonization of European clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education is urgently required. Because digital educational resources can be easily shared, adapted to local situations and re-used widely across a variety of educational systems, they may be ideally suited for this purpose. Methods: With a cross-sectional survey among principal CPT teachers in 279 out of 304 European medical schools, an overview and classification of digital resources was compiled. Results: Teachers from 95 (34%) medical schools in 26 of 28 EU countries responded, 66 (70%) of whom used digital educational resources in their CPT curriculum. A total of 89 of such resources were described in detail, including e-learning (24%), simulators to teach pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics (10%), virtual patients (8%), and serious games (5%). Together, these resources covered 235 knowledge-based learning objectives, 88 skills, and 13 attitudes. Only one third (27) of the resources were in-part or totally free and only two were licensed open educational resources (free to use, distribute and adapt). A narrative overview of the largest, free and most novel resources is given. Conclusion: Digital educational resources, ranging from e-learning to virtual patients and games, are widely used for CPT education in EU medical schools. Learning objectives are based largely on knowledge rather than skills or attitudes. This may be improved by including more real-life clinical case scenarios. Moreover, the majority of resources are neither free nor open. Therefore, with a view to harmonizing international CPT education, more needs to be learned about why CPT teachers are not currently sharing their educational materials.
MULTIFILE
ABSTRACT Purpose: Polypharmacy is a known risk factor for potentially inappropriate prescribing. Recently there is an increasing interest in clinical decision support systems (CDSS) to improve prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a CDSS, with the START-STOPP criteria as main content in the setting of a geriatric ward. Endpoints were 1) appropriateness of prescribing and 2) acceptance rate of recommendations. Methods: This prospective study comparing the use of a CDSS with usual care involved patients admitted to geriatric wards in two teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were included from January to May 2017. The medications of 64 patients in the first six weeks was assessed according to the current standard, whereas the medications of 61 patients in the second six weeks were also assessed by using a CDSS. Medication appropriateness was assessed with the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). Results: The medications of 125 patients (median age 83 years) were reviewed. In both the usual care group and the intervention group MAI scores decreased significantly from admission to discharge (within group analyses, p<0.001). This effect was significantly larger in the intervention group (p<0.05). MAI scores at discharge in the usual care group and the intervention group were respectively 9.95±6.70 and 7.26±5.07. The CDSS generated 193 recommendations, of which 71 concerned START criteria, 45 STOPP criteria, and 77 potential interactions. Overall, 31.6% of the recommendations were accepted. Conclusion: This study shows that a CDSS to improve prescribing has additional value in the setting of a geriatric ward. Almost one third of the software-generated recommendations were interpreted as clinically relevant and accepted, on average one per patient.
MULTIFILE
Treatment guidelines difer signifcantly, not only between Europe and North America but also among European countries [1–4]. Reasons for these diferences include antimicrobial resistance patterns, accessibility to and reimbursement policies for medicines, and culturally and historically determined prescribing attitudes. The European Association of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics’ Education Working Group has launched several initiatives to improve and harmonize European pharmacotherapy education, but international diferences have proven to be a major barrier to these eforts [5–7]. While we have taken steps to chart these diferences [6, 8], it will probably not be possible to fully resolve them. Rather than viewing these diferences as a barrier, we should perhaps see them as an opportunity for intercultural learning by providing students and teachers a valuable lesson in the context-dependent nature of prescribing medication and the diferent interpretations of evidence-based medicine. Here, we extend our experience with interprofessional student-run clinics [9, 10], to report on our first experiences with the “International and Interprofessional Student-run Clinic.” We organized three successful video meetings with medical and pharmacy students of the Amsterdam UMC, location VU University (the Netherlands), and the University of Bologna (Italy). During these meetings, one of the students presented a real-life case of a patient on polypharmacy. Then, in a 45-min session, the students split into smaller groups (break-out rooms) to review the patient’s medication, using the prescribing optimization method and STOPP/ START criteria [11, 12]. The teachers rotated between the diferent rooms and assisted the students when necessary. Teachers and students reconvened for 60 min for debriefng, with students presenting their fndings and suggestions to revise the medication list and teachers stimulating discussion and indicating how they would alter the medication list. Participation was voluntary, and the meetings were held in the evenings to accommodate students in clinical rotations. Third-to-fnal-year medical and pharmacy students participated in the three meetings (n=17, n=20, n=12, respectively). They reported learning a lot from each other, gaining an international and interprofessional perspective. Moreover, they learned to always consider the patient’s perspective, that evidence-based medicine is context-dependent, and that guidelines should be adapted to the patient’s situation.
MULTIFILE
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
