Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate how the prescribing knowledge and skills of junior doctors in the Netherlands and Belgium develop in the year after graduation. We also analysed differences in knowledge and skills between surgical and nonsurgical junior doctors. Methods: This international, multicentre (n = 11), longitudinal study analysed the learning curves of junior doctors working in various specialties via three validated assessments at about the time of graduation, and 6 months and 1 year after graduation. Each assessment contained 35 multiple choice questions (MCQs) on medication safety (passing grade ≥85%) and three clinical scenarios. Results: In total, 556 junior doctors participated, 326 (58.6%) of whom completed the MCQs and 325 (58.5%) the clinical case scenarios of all three assessments. Mean prescribing knowledge was stable in the year after graduation, with 69% (SD 13) correctly answering questions at assessment 1 and 71% (SD 14) at assessment 3, whereas prescribing skills decreased: 63% of treatment plans were considered adequate at assessment 1 but only 40% at assessment 3 (P < .001). While nonsurgical doctors had similar learning curves for knowledge and skills as surgical doctors (P = .53 and P = .56 respectively), their overall level was higher at all three assessments (all P < .05). Conclusion: These results show that junior doctors' prescribing knowledge and skills did not improve while they were working in clinical practice. Moreover, their level was under the predefined passing grade. As this might adversely affect patient safety, educational interventions should be introduced to improve the prescribing competence of junior doctors.
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
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
