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.
METHODS: The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to extend UHC to a further 1 billion people by 2023, yet evidence supporting improved emergency care coverage is lacking. In this article, we explore four phases of a research prioritisation setting (RPS) exercise conducted by researchers and stakeholders from South Africa, Egypt, Nepal, Jamaica, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, South Korea and Phillipines, USA and UK as a key step in gathering evidence required by policy makers and practitioners for the strengthening of emergency care systems in limited-resource settings.
RESULTS: The RPS proposed seven priority research questions addressing: identification of context-relevant emergency care indicators, barriers to effective emergency care; accuracy and impact of triage tools; potential quality improvement via registries; characteristics of people seeking emergency care; best practices for staff training and retention; and cost effectiveness of critical care - all within LMICs.
CONCLUSIONS: Convened by WHO and facilitated by the University of Sheffield, the Global Emergency Care Research Network project (GEM-CARN) brought together a coalition of 16 countries to identify research priorities for strengthening emergency care in LMICs. Our article further assesses the quality of the RPS exercise and reviews the current evidence supporting the identified priorities.