The impact of a summative national prescribing assessment and curriculum type on the development of the prescribing competence of junior doctors
-
Published:2023-09-22
Issue:12
Volume:79
Page:1613-1621
-
ISSN:0031-6970
-
Container-title:European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Eur J Clin Pharmacol
Author:
Donker Erik M.,Osmani Hayaudin,Brinkman David J.,van Rosse Floor,Janssen Ben,Knol Wilma,Dumont Glenn,Jorens Philippe G.,Dupont Alain,Christiaens Thierry,van Smeden Jeroen,de Waard-Siebinga Itte,Peeters Laura E. J.,Goorden Ronald,Hessel Marleen,Lissenberg-Witte Birgit I.,Richir Milan C.,van Agtmael Michiel A.,Kramers Cornelis,Tichelaar Jelle,
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Pharmacology,General Medicine
Reference31 articles.
1. Brinkman DJ, Tichelaar J, Graaf S, Otten RHJ, Richir MC, van Agtmael MA (2018) Do final-year medical students have sufficient prescribing competencies? A systematic literature review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 84(4):615–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13491 2. Brinkman DJ, Tichelaar J, Schutte T, Benemei S, Bottiger Y, Chamontin B, Christiaens T, Likic R, Ma iulaitis R, Marandi T, Monteiro EC, Papaioannidou P, Pers YM, Pontes C, Raskovic A, Regenthal R, Sanz EJ, Tamba BI, Wilson K, Vries T, Richir MC, Agtmael MV, Working Group Research on CPTEotEAfCP, Therapeutics (2017) Essential competencies in prescribing: a first european cross-sectional study among 895 final-year medical students. Clin Pharmacol Ther 101(2):281–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.521 3. Donker EM, Brinkman DJ, van Rosse F, Janssen B, Knol W, Dumont G, Jorens PG, Dupont A, Christiaens T, van Smeden J, de Waard-Siebinga I, Peeters LEJ, Goorden R, Hessel M, Lissenberg-Witte B, Richir M, van Agtmael MA, Kramers C, Tichelaar J (2022) Do we become better prescribers after graduation: a 1-year international follow-up study among junior doctors. Br J Clin Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15443 4. Dornan T, Ashcroft D, Heathfield H, Lewis P, Miles J, Taylor D, Yully M, Was V (2009) An in depth investigation into causes of prescribing errors by foundation trainees in relation to their medical education. EQUIP study. In: ed 5. Ryan C, Ross S, Davey P, Duncan EM, Francis JJ, Fielding S, Johnston M, Ker J, Lee AJ, MacLeod MJ, Maxwell S, McKay GA, McLay JS, Webb DJ, Bond C (2014) Prevalence and causes of prescribing errors: the PRescribing Outcomes for Trainee Doctors Engaged in Clinical Training (PROTECT) study. PLoS ONE 9(1):e79802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079802
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|