AIM: Our aim is to develop and validate a pharmaceutical assessment screening tool (PAST) to guide medical ward pharmacists in our local hospitals to effectively prioritise patient care.
METHOD: This study involved 2 major phases; (1) development of PAST through literature review and group discussion, (2) validation of PAST using a three-round Delphi survey. Twenty-four experts were invited by email to participate in the Delphi survey. In each round, experts were required to rate the relevance and completeness of PAST criteria and were given chance for open feedback. The 75% consensus benchmark was set and criteria with achieved consensus were retained in PAST. Experts' suggestions were considered and added into PAST for rating. After each round, experts were provided with anonymised feedback and results from the previous round.
RESULTS: Three Delphi rounds resulted in the final tool (rearranged as mnemonic 'STORIMAP'). STORIMAP consists of 8 main criteria with 29 subcomponents. Marks are allocated for each criteria in STORIMAP which can be combined to a total of 15 marks. Patient acuity level is determined based on the final score and clerking priority is assigned accordingly.
CONCLUSION: STORIMAP potentially serves as a useful tool to guide medical ward pharmacists to prioritise patients effectively, hence establishing acuity-based pharmaceutical care.
METHODS: We conducted five semi-structured focus groups with 18 pharmacy students from years one to four of the bachelor of pharmacy program at Monash University Malaysia where students came from different pre-university backgrounds. Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Interrater reliability was performed to ascertain reliability of themes.
RESULTS: Three major themes were identified. Firstly, students cited issues moving past the initial barrier when starting flipped classrooms in terms of education background impacting adaptability and how/why they eventually adapted. Another theme was how flipped classrooms helped development of life skills such as adaptability, communication, teamwork, self-reflection, and time management. The final theme was on requiring a sufficient safety net and support system in flipped classrooms that included well designed pre-classroom materials and well-implemented feedback mechanisms.
CONCLUSIONS: We have identified students' perspectives on the benefits and challenges associated with a predominantly flipped classroom pharmacy curriculum in a low to middle income country setting. We suggest using scaffolding and effective feedback approaches to guide the implementation of flipped classrooms successfully. This work can aid future educational designers in preparation and supporting a more equitable learning experience regardless of student background.
METHODS: A three-station OSCE set in a hospital and community pharmacy was designed and mapped to the World Health Organisation's AMS intervention practical guide. This OSCE comprised 39 unique cases and was implemented across two campuses (Malaysia and Australia) at one institute. Stations were 8 min long and consisted of problem-solving and applying AMS principles to drug therapy management (Station 1), counselling on key antimicrobials (Station 2) or managing infectious diseases in primary care (Station 3). Primary outcome measure to assess viability was the proportion of students who were able to pass each case.
KEY FINDINGS: Other than three cases with pass rates of 50, 52.8 and 66. 7%, all cases had pass rates of 75% or more. Students were most confident with referral to medical practitioner cases and switching from intravenous to oral or empirical to directed therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: An AMS-based OSCE is a viable assessment tool in pharmacy education. Further research should explore whether similar assessments can help improve students' confidence at recognising opportunities for AMS intervention in the workplace.
METHODS: A bibliometric review was conducted on literature from over 23 years from January 2000 to May 2023. Articles focusing on any type of OSCE research in pharmacy education in both undergraduate and postgraduate sectors were included. Articles were excluded if they were not original articles or not published in English. A summative content analysis was also conducted to identify key topics.
RESULTS: A total of 192 articles were included in the analysis. There were 242 institutions that contributed to the OSCE literature in pharmacy education, with the leading country being Canada. Most OSCE research came from developed countries and were descriptive studies based on single institution data. The top themes emerging from content analysis were student perceptions on OSCE station styles (n = 98), staff perception (n = 19), grade assessment of OSCEs (n = 145), interprofessional education (n = 11), standardized patients (n = 12), and rubric development and standard setting (n = 8).
IMPLICATIONS: There has been a growth in virtual OSCEs, interprofessional OSCEs, and artificial intelligence OSCEs. Communication rubrics and minimizing assessor variability are still trending research areas. There is scope to conduct more research on evaluating specific types of OSCEs, when best to hold an OSCE, and comparing OSCEs to other assessments.
Methods: The modified Delphi method was used to obtain the consensus. The initial indicators, based on a literature review, were evaluated and assessed by members of the expert panel through three rounds of repetition until the consensus was reached. The expert panel members were selected based on their knowledge of or expertise in pharmacy service performance and geographical considerations. Analysis of the expert panel consensus level was determined by calculating the mean and interquartile range.
Results: Fifteen expert panel members started the first round (93.7% of the 16 targets) with 12 of them (75%) completing the third round of the modified Delphi method. Three expert panel members were representatives of the Regency Health Office, and the others were pharmacist practitioners at primary health centres from three different regencies. The consensus results were 26 indicators of drug management, 19 indicators of clinical pharmacy services, and two indicators of overall pharmacy performance.
Conclusion: The consensus indicators for measuring drug management, clinical pharmacy services, and overall pharmacy performance can be used as a reference and standard to measure the quality of pharmacy services at primary health centres. Therefore, the measurement results are more relevant if compared between one and other studies.
METHODS: A crossover study was conducted among Year 1 and Year 2 pharmacy students. Students were invited to participate voluntarily for one OB and one CB online formative test in a chemistry module in each year. Evaluation of their learning approach and perception of the OB and CB systems of examination was conducted using Deep Information Processing (DIP) questionnaire and Student Perception questionnaire respectively. The mean performance scores of OB and CB examinations were compared.
RESULTS: Analysis of DIP scores showed that there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the learning approach adopted for the two different examination systems. However, the mean score obtained in the OB examination was significantly higher (p < 0.01) than those obtained in the CB examination. Preference was given by a majority of students for the OB examination, possibly because it was associated with lower anxiety levels, less requirement of memorization, and more problem solving.
CONCLUSION: There is no difference in deep learning approach of students, whether the format is of the OB or CB type examinations. However, the performance of students was significantly better in OB examination than CB. Hence, using OB examination along with CB examination will be useful for student learning and help them adapt to growing and changing knowledge in pharmacy education and practice.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study employed a validated, self-administered questionnaire which was administered to 543 first-year pharmacy students from nine different private universities. Factor analysis was utilised to extract key factors from the responses. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data.
KEY FINDINGS: Eight factors motivating students' decision to study pharmacy emerged from the responses, accounting for 63.8% of the variance observed. Students were primarily motivated by intrinsic interests, with work conditions and profession attributes also exerting significant influence. In terms of choice of private university, nine factors were identified, accounting for 73.8% of the variance observed. The image of the school and university were most influential factors in this context, followed by university safety, programme attributes and financial factors.
CONCLUSIONS: First-year pharmacy students in the private higher education sector are motivated by intrinsic interest when choosing to study pharmacy over other courses, while their choice of private university is influenced primarily by the image of the school and university.