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.
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: A one day accelerated dispensing course using MyDispense software was delivered to 59 GE students. The accelerated dispensing course was identical to the standard three-week dispensing course delivered to UG students. The same assessment of dispensing skills was conducted after course completion for both UG and GE students and included dispensing four prescriptions of varying difficulty. The assessment scores of the UG and GE students were compared. Perception data from the accelerated course were also collected.
FINDINGS: The accelerated dispensing curriculum was well received by students. They found the simulation relevant to practice, easy to navigate, and helpful for preparing them for assessment. Overall, 5.1% of GE students failed the assessment, which was lower than the 32.6% failure rate in the UG cohort. Comparison of assessment grades between UG and GE students showed no notable disadvantage to attainment of learning outcomes with the accelerated curriculum. However, UG students were more likely to provide unsafe instructions compared to GE students in their labeling for three out of four prescriptions.
SUMMARY: An accelerated dispensing curriculum can be effectively delivered to mature learners with a prior science-related degree as no notable deficiencies were identified when comparing the assessment results of GE students against UG students when both student cohorts undertook the same dispensing assessment.