Are UK pharmacists ready for consultant-level practice? A cross-sectional survey of self-assessed development needs.

OBJECTIVES: The four nations of the United Kingdom (UK) have endorsed a new curriculum and credentialing process for consultant pharmacists. This study aimed to measure the self-reported consultant-level practice development needs of pharmacists across the UK. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional electronic survey. Inclusion criteria were: pharmacists registered to practice with the General Pharmaceutical Council; working in any professional sector across the UK; and self-identifying as already working at an advanced level of practice or in an advanced pharmacist role. Participants were asked to rate their confidence that their current practice aligns to the level described in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society Consultant Pharmacist curriculum on a 5-point Likert scale. Predictors of overall confidence with the whole curriculum were analysed using binomial regression. KEY FINDINGS: Nine hundred and forty-four pharmacists participated. Median age was 42 years; 72.6% were female. Research skills and strategic leadership skills had low self-reported confidence. Patient-Centred Care and Collaboration was the domain with the highest reported confidence. 10.2% (96/944) of participants self-reported confidence across the whole curriculum. The strongest predictors of overall confidence across the curriculum were advanced clinical practitioner qualification, research qualifications and self-identifying as a specialist. Increasing age and male gender also predicted confidence. White ethnicity and having an independent prescribing qualification negatively predicted confidence. CONCLUSION: A small minority of pharmacists self-reported confidence across the whole curriculum. A planned approach to develop research skills across the career spectrum, coupled with better identification of workplace-based experiential strategic leadership opportunities, may help deliver a larger cohort of 'consultant-ready' pharmacists.

More than one-third of systematic reviews did not fully report the adverse events outcome.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the risk for adverse events reporting bias in systematic reviews of health care interventions registered to PROSPERO. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a retrospective cohort study. Systematic review protocols in PROSPERO were screened and included if they focused on a health care intervention and listed an adverse event as either a primary or secondary outcome. The included systematic reviews were assessed to determine the completeness of reporting for the adverse event outcomes. Any discrepancies in reporting between protocol and review were recorded. RESULTS: Of 1,376 protocols for systematic reviews sifted, only 524 (38%) listed adverse events outcomes. One hundred eighty-six protocols were published in 2017 and 2018, of which 146 were included in our analysis. Among the included systematic reviews, 65% (95/146) fully reported the adverse event outcomes as intended by the protocol, 8% (12/146) entirely excluded the adverse event outcome, and the remaining 27% (39/146) either partially reported or changed the adverse event outcomes. CONCLUSION: Sixty-two percent of reviews did not mention adverse events in their protocol, and 35% of PROSPERO-registered systematic reviews had discrepant outcome reporting between the protocol and publication. The findings suggest a need for the encouraged use of harms reporting guidelines and further research into adverse events reporting bias.