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 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
