Adverse drug reaction teaching in UK undergraduate medical and pharmacy programmes

Objectives: To assess the extent of teaching about the Committee on Safety of Medicine's Yellow Card scheme and adverse drug reactions within UK Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy. Methods: A self-completed questionnaire sent to all heads of undergraduate schools of medicine and pharmacy within the UK. Results: The majority of undergraduate syllabuses feature the Yellow Card Scheme. Knowledge of the Yellow Card Scheme was assessed in 79% of pharmacy programmes and 57% of medical schools. Specialist speakers on the Yellow Card Scheme were infrequently used. Fewer than half of respondents provided students with a guide to reporting ADRs (43% pharmacy and 43% medical). There is some disagreement about the value of supplying students with printed material about the Yellow Card Scheme. Half of medical Schools did not think that supplying 'Current Problems In Pharmacovigilance' would be useful. Conclusions: It was found that in both medicine and pharmacy, courses differed substantially in teaching about the Yellow Card Scheme and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). There is scope for increased involvement of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in undergraduate education, in line with recommendations from the National Audit Office.

Mapping teaching, learning and assessment in the MPharm in UK schools of pharmacy

Aim To undertake a national study of teaching, learning and assessment in UK schools of pharmacy. Design Triangulation of course documentation, 24 semi-structured interviews undertaken with 29 representatives from the schools and a survey of all final year students (n=1,847) in the 15 schools within the UK during 2003–04. Subjects and setting All established UK pharmacy schools and final year MPharm students. Outcome measures Data were combined and analysed under the topics of curriculum, teaching and learning, assessment, multi-professional teaching and learning, placement education and research projects. Results Professional accreditation was the main driver for curriculum design but links to preregistration training were poor. Curricula were consistent but offered little student choice. On average half the curriculum was science-based. Staff supported the science content but students less so. Courses were didactic but schools were experimenting with new methods of learning. Examinations were the principal form of assessment but the contribution of practice to the final degree ranged considerably (21–63%). Most students considered the assessment load to be about right but with too much emphasis upon knowledge. Assessment of professional competence was focused upon dispensing and pharmacy law. All schools undertook placement teaching in hospitals but there was little in community/primary care. There was little inter-professional education. Resources and logistics were the major limiters. Conclusions There is a need for an integrated review of the accreditation process for the MPharm and preregistration training and redefinition of professional competence at an undergraduate level.

Science or practice? UK undergraduate experiences and attitudes to the MPharm degree

Objective: The debate surrounding the science/practice balance in the teaching of undergraduate pharmacy has been played out in the professional literature for years. The objective of this work was to explore the attitudes of pharmacy undergraduates on the practice-science debate. Setting: The study was undertaken as part of a national study of teaching, learning and assessment methods in United Kingdom (UK) schools of pharmacy. Method: Six focus groups were carried out. The sample was 44 volunteer students from nine UK schools of pharmacy, representing all 4 years of the MPharm programme. Groups were tape recorded and transcribed. Analysis of the transcripts was theme based by topic. Main Outcome Measure: Qualitative data on student attitudes and experiences. Results: Most students thought that there was too strong an emphasis placed on the science components of the course in the early part of their studies. Later in the course they realised that the majority of the science was necessary; it just had not been apparent to them at the time. There were strongly held attitudes across all 4 years that it would be beneficial to include more practice-related material at the beginning of their studies. This would be beneficial for three reasons: to make the course more interesting, to aid in the contextualisation of the science component and to assist the students in any early placement or vacational work. Conclusion: Internationally, changes to the role of the pharmacist from a traditional supply function to a more clinical role has resulted in differing educational needs for the pharmacist of the future. Pharmacy will remain a degree built on a strong scientific background, but students advise that the contextualisation and sequencing of material within the degree could make a considerable improvement to their learning. Consulting students helps us to understand the teaching, learning and assessment experience better by giving insights into ways of improving the delivery. In the case of the UK, there are legislative changes impending which may provide an opportunity to review the balance of practice-and science in the curriculum. © 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.