Abstract Purpose Knowledge of clinical pharmacotherapy is essential for all who prescribe medication. The aims of this study were to investigate differences in the pharmacotherapy and polypharmacy knowledge of medical and surgical residents and consultants and whether this knowledge can be improved by following an online course. Methods Design: A before-and-after-measurement. Setting: An online course available for Dutch residents and consultants working in hospitals. Study population: Dutch residents and consultants from different disciplines who voluntarily followed an online course on geriatric care. Intervention An online 6-week course on geriatric care, with 1 week dedicated to clinical pharmacotherapy and polypharmacy. Variables, such as medical vs surgical specialty, consultant vs resident, age, and sex, that could predict the level of knowledge. The effects of the online course were studied using repeated measures ANOVA. The study was approved by the National Ethics Review Board of Medical Education (NERB dossier number 996). Results A total of 394 residents and 270 consultants, 220 from surgical and 444 from medical specialties, completed the online course in 2016 and 2017. Residents had higher test scores than consultants for pharmacotherapy (73% vs 70%, p<0.02) and polypharmacy (75% vs 72%, p<0.02). The learning effect did not differ. Medical residents/consultants had a better knowledge of pharmacotherapy (74% vs 68%, p<0.001) and polypharmacy (77% vs 66%, p<0.001) than surgical residents/consultants, but the learning effect was the same. Conclusions Residents and consultants had a similar learning curve for acquiring knowledge, but residents outperformed consultants on all measures. In addition, surgical and medical residents/consultants had similar learning curves, but medical residents/consultants had higher test scores on all measures.
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 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
