Designing and evaluating an interprofessional education conference approach to antimicrobial education.

BACKGROUND: Arguably, Medical School curricula are deficient in learning opportunities related to the safe and effective use of medicines, in particular antimicrobials. Infection management is complex and multidisciplinary, and learning opportunities should reflect these principles. Aligned to the complexity of the subject matter, simulation and interprofessional based teaching are methods that can foster the collaborative skills required of future healthcare professionals. There have been calls to develop these methods in the teaching of safe prescribing and the management of infections; however, reports of such studies are limited. METHODS: We developed an interprofessional education (IPE) conference for second year undergraduate medical and pharmacy students based in the North East of England. We considered contact theory in the design of three small group interprofessional workshops, on the broad themes of antimicrobial stewardship, infection management and patient safety. A mixed methods approach assessed students' attitudes towards IPE, barriers and facilitators of learning, and perceived learning gains. Qualitative data from workshop evaluation forms were analysed thematically, while quantitative data were analysed descriptively and differences between medical and pharmacy cohorts analysed using unpaired two-tailed t-tests. RESULTS: 226/352 students returned the workshop evaluation forms (66% of pharmacy students, 62% of medical students). 281/352 students responded to a series of Likert scale questions on the value of interprofessional education (88% of pharmacy students, 70% of medical students). Students reported acquisition of knowledge and skills, including concepts and procedures related to infection management and antimicrobial prescribing, and the development of problem-solving and critical evaluation skills. Students reflected on their attitude towards interprofessional collaboration. They reported a greater understanding of the roles of other healthcare professionals, reflected on the importance of effective communication in ensuring patient safety, and were more confident to work in interprofessional teams after the conference. CONCLUSIONS: A robust IPE event, theoretically underpinned by contact theory and developed collaboratively, achieved interprofessional learning at scale and helped develop healthcare professionals willing to collaborate across disciplines. The resources, and evaluation insights based on the 3P (presage, process, and product) model of learning and teaching, will be of value to other educators who seek to develop theoretically-sound IPE interventions.

Making it work: the feasibility and logistics of delivering large-scale interprofessional education to undergraduate healthcare students in a conference format.

An interprofessional education conference was developed and delivered to undergraduate medical and pharmacy students to address training needs around appropriate antimicrobial prescribing, identification and management of sepsis, patient safety and interprofessional working. The day consisted of keynote lectures delivered by specialist speakers and three small group interprofessional teaching sessions exploring (1) the choice and prescribing of antimicrobials for a range of infections, (2) the diagnosis and management of sepsis utilising simulation methodology and (3) the discussion of a clinical error using significant event analysis. Students' attitudes and acceptance towards this educational intervention were assessed using a mixed methods evaluation. The delivery of an effective learning and teaching intervention in a conference format to a large cohort of pharmacy and medical students (n = 352) was found to be feasible. The logistics of organising an IPE conference of this scale were challenging but not insurmountable if sufficient staff and financial resources can be secured. Scheduling access to adequate teaching rooms and student timetabling were amongst the other important aspects affecting the success of such an event.

Can bone turnover markers help to define the suitability and duration of bisphosphonate drug holidays?

BACKGROUND: On stopping bisphosphonate treatment, bone resorption may increase before evidence of a decrease in bone density. Offset of bisphosphonate effect may therefore be monitored by measuring C-terminal telopeptide (CTX) following long-term bisphosphonate treatment to inform clinical decisions on drug holiday. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 158 patients (83% female, mean age 71 years) starting a drug holiday had plasma CTX measured at discontinuation (baseline), n=138 and 4 months and n=136, and 12 months (n=100). Premenopausal mean CTX levels and the least significant change (LSC) detectable were used to define target thresholds for bone turnover. RESULTS: Following long-term bisphosphonate treatment (69% alendronic acid, 33% risedronate, mean duration 8 years SD 2.7), 32% patients had CTX above target (0.19 µg/L). In those with baseline CTX below threshold, 28% increased CTX to >0.19 µg/L and > LSC (0.06 µg/L) by 4 months (mean CTX increase 0.05 µg/L [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.06; p<0.0001]) and 53% by 12 months (mean CTX increase 0.09 µg/L [95% CI: 0.07-0.10; p<0.0001]), whilst 47% had no detectable changes in CTX over 12 months. CONCLUSION: A third of patients showed inadequate suppression of CTX at baseline, despite long-term bisphosphonate treatment. Drug holiday may not be appropriate for this group, showing a poor therapeutic response or poor adherence. For more than a quarter of patients, bisphosphonate effects were wearing off at 4 months and around half by 12 months. We suggest CTX monitoring could identify those not experiencing a sustained bisphosphonate effect, including poorly adherence to therapy, and may be used during a drug holiday to prompt recommencement of therapy.

Exploring the utility of the Prescribing Safety Assessment in pharmacy education in England: experiences of pre-registration trainees and undergraduate (MPharm) pharmacy students.

OBJECTIVES: (i) To provide a preliminary indication of the performance of pharmacy undergraduate students and pre-registration pharmacy trainees in the Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA). (ii) To determine the feasibility of administering and delivering the PSA in schools of pharmacy. (iii) To examine the potential relevance of the PSA and associated training materials to pharmacy education. (iv) To assess the attitudes of the cohort towards the PSA and their readiness to prescribe. METHODS: Four schools of pharmacy in England recruited final year undergraduate pharmacy students and pre-registration pharmacy trainees undertaking training with both hospital and community pharmacy employers in their locality to undertake the PSA. Performance data and feedback from candidates were obtained. KEY FINDINGS: Pre-registration pharmacy trainees in community (n = 27) and hospital (n = 209) settings mean average scores were 86.3% and 85.3%, respectively. There was a significant performance differential between undergraduate pharmacy students (n = 397) and those in pre-registration training, with the mean average score for undergraduate students being 73.0% (t test P < 0.05). Candidates felt their current course did prepare them for the PSA, some highlighted that additional curriculum content would be needed should this become a compulsory high-stakes assessment for pharmacy trainees. The majority of candidates felt that this assessment was useful and applicable to their training. CONCLUSIONS: The PSA process and associated learning tools could be introduced to pre-registration pharmacy education to support trainees in their development towards future prescribing roles.