Implementation of the national antimicrobial stewardship competencies for UK undergraduate healthcare professional education within undergraduate pharmacy programmes: a survey of UK schools of pharmacy.

Background: Pharmacists play a key role in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). Consensus-based national AMS competencies for undergraduate healthcare professionals in the UK reflect the increasing emphasis on competency-based healthcare professional education. However, the extent to which these are included within undergraduate pharmacy education programmes in the UK is unknown. Objectives: To explore which of the AMS competencies are delivered, including when and at which level, within UK undergraduate MPharm programmes. Methods: A cross-sectional online questionnaire captured the level of study of the MPharm programme in which each competency was taught, the method of delivery and assessment of AMS education, and examples of student feedback. Results: Ten institutions completed the survey (33% response rate). No institution reported covering all 54 AMS competencies and 5 of these were taught at half or fewer of the institutions. Key gaps were identified around taking samples, communication, outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy and surgical prophylaxis. The minimum time dedicated to AMS teaching differed between institutions (range 9-119 h), teaching was generally through didactic methods, and assessment was generally through knowledge recall and objective structured clinical examinations. Feedback from students suggests they find AMS and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to be complex yet important topics. Conclusions: UK schools of pharmacy should utilize the competency framework to identify gaps in their AMS, AMR and infection teaching. To prepare newly qualified pharmacists to be effective at delivering AMS and prescribing antimicrobials, schools of pharmacy should utilize more simulated environments and clinical placements for education and assessment of AMS.

Lonsurf (trifluridine/tipiracil): Assessing the impact of dose related toxicities and progression free survival in (refractory) metastatic colorectal cancer.

In the RECOURSE trial which lead to its accreditation, Lonsurf (trifluridine/tipiracil) was shown to extend progression free survival (PFS) by 1.8 months in metastatic colorectal cancer. This Trust audit aims to assess the average quantity of cycles of Lonsurf received by participants and the length of time it extends PFS. Similarly, to identify how many participants required a dose-reduction or experienced toxicities which necessitated supportive therapies. Quantitative data was collected retrospectively from all participants who had received ≥1 cycle of Lonsurf from The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre (CCC) from 2016 until June 2020. Participant electronic patient records were accessed to identify toxicity grading, length of treatment received, the date progression was identified, if dose reductions were applied and if supportive therapies were administered. Lonsurf extends PFS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer at CCC by 3.0 months (95% CI: 2.73-3.27) and average treatment length was 2.4 months. However, 78 participants (41.5%) received a dose reduction due to toxicities. A total of 955 toxicities were recorded by participants; the most commonly reported toxicities irrespective of grade were fatigue (33.8%), diarrhoea (13.8%) and nausea (12.3%). The most common grade ≥3 toxicities were constipation and infection. The most frequently utilised supportive therapies were loperamide (49.6%) and domperidone (49.1%). Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) was required by patients on 5 occasions (0.3%) in total. Lonsurf extends median PFS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer by 3.0 months. The most common grade ≥3 toxicities which necessitated supportive therapies or a dose reduction were gastrointestinal and infection.

Inpatient prescribing systems used in NHS Acute Trusts across England: a managerial perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The individualised patient prescription chart, either paper or electronic, is an integral part of communication between healthcare professionals. The aim of this study is to ascertain the extent to which different prescribing systems are used for inpatient care in acute hospitals in England and explore chief pharmacists' opinions and experiences with respect to electronic prescribing and medicines administration (EPMA) systems. METHOD: Audio-recorded, semistructured telephone interviews with chief pharmacists or their nominated representatives of general acute hospital trusts across England. RESULTS: Forty-five per cent (65/146) of the chief pharmacists agreed to participate. Eighteen per cent (12/65) of the participants interviewed stated that their trust had EPMA systems fully or partially implemented on inpatient wards. The most common EPMA system in place was JAC (n=5) followed by MEDITECH (n=3), iSOFT (n=2), PICS (n=1) and one in-house created system. Of the 12 trusts that had EPMA in place, 4 used EPMA on all of their inpatient wards and the remaining 8 had a mixture of paper and EPMA systems in use. Fifty six (86% 56/65) of all participants had consulted the standards for the design of inpatient prescription charts. From the 12 EPMA interviews qualitatively analysed, the regulation required to provide quality patient care is perceived by some to be enforceable with an EPMA system, but that this may affect accuracy and clinical workflow, leading to undocumented, unofficial workarounds that may be harmful. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of inpatient prescribing in hospital continues to use paper-based systems; there was significant diversity in prescribing systems in use. EPMA systems have been implemented but many trusts have retained supplementary paper drug charts, for a variety of medications. Mandatory fields may be appropriate for core prescribing information, but the expansion of their use needs careful consideration.