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
Rational prescribing is essential for the quality of health care. However, many final-year medical students and junior doctors lack prescribing competence to perform this task. The availability of a list of medicines that a junior doctor working in Europe should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without supervision could support and harmonize teaching and training in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) in Europe. Therefore, our aim was to achieve consensus on such a list of medicines that are widely accessible in Europe. For this, we used a modified Delphi study method consisting of three parts. In part one, we created an initial list based on a literature search. In part two, a group of 64 coordinators in CPT education, selected via the Network of Teachers in Pharmacotherapy of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, evaluated the accessibility of each medicine in his or her country, and provided a diverse group of experts willing to participate in the Delphi part. In part three, 463 experts from 24 European countries were invited to participate in a 2-round Delphi study. In total, 187 experts (40%) from 24 countries completed both rounds and evaluated 416 medicines, 98 of which were included in the final list. The top three Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code groups were (1) cardiovascular system (n = 23), (2) anti-infective (n = 21), and (3) musculoskeletal system (n = 11). This European List of Key Medicines for Medical Education could be a starting point for country-specific lists and could be used for the training and assessment of CPT.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Purpose Sharing and developing digital educational resources and open educational resources has been proposed as a way to harmonize and improve clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education in European medical schools. Previous research, however, has shown that there are barriers to the adoption and implementation of open educational resources. The aim of this study was to determine perceived opportunities and barriers to the use and creation of open educational resources among European CPT teachers and possible solutions for these barriers. Methods CPT teachers of British and EU medical schools completed an online survey. Opportunities and challenges were identified by thematic analyses and subsequently discussed in an international consensus meeting. Results Data from 99 CPT teachers from 95 medical schools were analysed. Thirty teachers (30.3%) shared or collaboratively produced digital educational resources. All teachers foresaw opportunities in the more active use of open educational resources, including improving the quality of their teaching. The challenges reported were language barriers, local differences, lack of time, technological issues, difficulties with quality management, and copyright restrictions. Practical solutions for these challenges were discussed and include a peer review system, clear indexing, and use of copyright licenses that permit adaptation of resources. Conclusion Key challenges to making greater use of CPT open educational resources are a limited applicability of such resources due to language and local differences and quality concerns. These challenges may be resolved by relatively simple measures, such as allowing adaptation and translation of resources and a peer review system.
MULTIFILE
The relationship between race and biology is complex. In contemporary medical science, race is a social construct that is measured via self-identification of study participants. But even though race has no biological essence, it is often used as variable in medical guidelines (e.g., treatment recommendations specific for Black people with hypertension). Such recommendations are based on clinical trials in which there was a significant correlation between self-identified race and actual, but often unmeasured, health-related factors such as (pharmaco) genetics, diet, sun exposure, etc. Many teachers are insufficiently aware of this complexity. In their classes, they (unintentionally) portray self-reported race as having a biological essence. This may cause students to see people of shared race as biologically or genetically homogeneous, and believe that race-based recommendations are true for all individuals (rather than reflecting the average of a heterogeneous group). This medicalizes race and reinforces already existing healthcare disparities. Moreover, students may fail to learn that the relation between race and health is easily biased by factors such as socioeconomic status, racism, ancestry, and environment and that this limits the generalizability of race-based recommendations. We observed that the clinical case vignettes that we use in our teaching contain many stereotypes and biases, and do not generally reflect the diversity of actual patients. This guide, written by clinical pharmacology and therapeutics teachers, aims to help our colleagues and teachers in other health professions to reflect on and improve our teaching on race-based medical guidelines and to make our clinical case vignettes more inclusive and diverse.
MULTIFILE
ABSTRACT Introduction Junior doctors are responsible for a substantial number of prescribing errors, and final-year medical students lack sufficient prescribing knowledge and skills just before they graduate. Various national and international projects have been initiated to reform the teaching of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) during undergraduate medical training. However, there is as yet no list of commonly prescribed and available medicines that European doctors should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. Such a list could form the basis for a European Prescribing Exam and would harmonise European CP&T education. Therefore, the aim of this study is to reach consensus on a list of widely prescribed medicines, available in most European countries, that European junior doctors should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision: the European List of Essential Medicines for Medical Education. Methods and analysis This modified Delphi study will recruit European CP&T teachers (expert group). Two Delphi rounds will be carried out to enable a list to be drawn up of medicines that are available in ≥80% of European countries, which are considered standard prescribing practice, and which junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without supervision. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of VU University Medical Center (no. 2020.335) and by the Ethical Review Board of the Netherlands Association for Medical Education (approved project no. NVMO‐ERB 2020.4.8). The European List of Essential Medicines for Medical Education will be presented at national and international conferences and will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals. It will also be used to develop and implement the European Prescribing Exam.
MULTIFILE
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: 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 Managing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is a challenge, especially because most healthcare professionals are insufficiently trained for this task. Since context-based clinical pharmacovigilance training has proven effective, we assessed the feasibility and effect of a creating a team of Junior-Adverse Drug Event Managers (J-ADEMs). The J-ADEM team consisted of medical students (1st–6th year) tasked with managing and reporting ADRs in hospitalized patients. Feasibility was evaluated using questionnaires. Student competence in reporting ADRs was evaluated using a case-control design and questionnaires before and after J-ADEM program participation. From Augustus 2018 to Augustus 2019, 41 students participated in a J-ADEM team and screened 136 patients and submitted 65 ADRs reports to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb. Almost all patients (n = 61) found it important that “their” ADR was reported, and all (n = 62) patients felt they were taken seriously by the J-ADEM team. Although attending physicians agreed that the ADRs should have been reported, they did not do so themselves mainly because of a “lack of knowledge and attitudes” (50%) and “excuses made by healthcare professionals” (49%). J-ADEM team students were significantly more competent than control students in managing ADRs and correctly applying all steps for diagnosing ADRs (control group 38.5% vs. intervention group 83.3%, p < 0.001). The J-ADEM team is a feasible approach for detecting and managing ADRs in hospital. Patients were satisfied with the care provided, physicians were supported in their ADR reporting obligations, and students acquired relevant basic and clinical pharmacovigilance skills and knowledge, making it a win-win-win intervention.
MULTIFILE
