Prescribing Education for Medical Students

by Danielle McGrew, Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy

Summary and Analysis of: Newby DA, Stokes B, Smith AJ. A pilot study of a pharmacist-led prescribing program for final-year medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2019 Feb 12;19(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1486-1 

I love to find articles in the literature focused on ways pharmacists have implemented a program, educated others, or proven their worth while working on an interprofessional team. So, when I came across an article about a pharmacist-led educational program that benefited patients and prescribers alike, I was immediately intrigued.  The purpose of this study was to improve prescribing confidence and skills and to improve medical students’ understanding of the role pharmacists can play in the management of patients. It is known that prescribing medications is one of the intimidating tasks for medical students as they transition to becoming licensed physicians. One study found that recent medical school graduates did not feel prepared for prescribing in clinical practice, which they attributed to a lack of opportunities to develop the skill-based, applied aspects of prescribing.¹  Other studies have shown that medical interns often prescribe inappropriately for many common conditions.² Thus, there is a need for more training and practice opportunities for medical students to prepare them for clinical practice.

In this study conducted in Australia, all final-year medical students at three tertiary hospitals were invited to take part in an eight-week prescribing training program. The program consisted of three instructional strategies: prescribing and calculation tutorials, weekly feedback from a pharmacist regarding prescribing, and one afternoon spent in the pharmacy to learn about and observe the dispensing process. The tutorials involved allowing the students to practice either selecting and prescribing medications or calculating and prescribing a dose of a medication based on a case scenario representing the most common conditions faced by junior doctors. The common conditions included stroke prevention (anticoagulation therapy), diabetes, pain management, constipation, nausea and vomiting, asthma, and hypertension. Confidence and appropriateness of prescribing were measured upon completion of the tutorials on week one and week eight. Confidence in a variety of prescribing areas was assessed using a confidence scale adapted from a questionnaire developed by the TOPDOC study team to rate junior doctor confidence.³ The tutorials covered such topics as selecting a medication for a condition, writing a prescription order for both inpatients and outpatients, taking a medication history, identifying potential drug interactions and adverse events, monitoring effectiveness, and planning discharge medications.  To assess the appropriateness of prescribing, the students completed a prescribing exercise based on a clinical scenario. Blinded to what student was completing the exercise and to whether it was a pre- or post-assessment, a clinical pharmacist and clinical pharmacologist assessed the appropriateness of each prescription using a previously validated scale. Additionally, students provided feedback about the impact of the program at the completion of the program by participating in focus groups and completing a questionnaire. Pre- and post-program assessments were examined using permutation tests, which assesses whether two distributions are significantly different from each other without making any assumptions about the shape of the distributions.

Twenty-three students completing their rotations at three hospital sites agreed to participate, with only 16 participating in most or all of the required activities and taking the pre- and post-course questionnaires and assessments. Results showed a significant increase in confidence across all areas of prescribing skills assessed. At baseline, a majority of students rated themselves as ‘not confident’ or ‘satisfactory but lacking confidence’ in each area, but upon completion of the program none of the students rated themselves as ‘not confident’ in any area, with the exception of one student that rated him/herself as ‘not confident’ in writing an outpatient prescription. The most noteworthy improvement was found in writing inpatient prescriptions – after the program, all students rated themselves as ‘confident in most cases but would like more experience’ or ‘fully confident in most cases.’  None of the students rated themselves ‘fully confident’ at baseline. Students were most confident in writing prescriptions for medications related to the disease states discussed in the tutorials.

There was a small and non-significant improvement in the appropriateness of the students’ prescribing from baseline to week eight. However, it is important to note is that none of the students’ prescriptions were rated ‘inappropriate and potentially harmful’ after finishing the prescribing program. Student feedback was uniformly positive, with students agreeing or strongly agreeing to statements about the practical aspects of prescription writing, therapeutic appropriateness, and calculations aspects of the program.  Also, students indicated that the program helped to prepare them for their intern year. The focus group sessions revealed that students most valued the practice and immediate feedback they received.  Moreover, they learned about the support pharmacists can provide to them as prescribers. Negative comments centered on the difficulty of fitting the program into their schedule during demanding clinical rotations.

I thought that this was a good study to evaluate how influential a prescribing program may be on medical student’s knowledge and confidence in writing prescriptions. One major weakness was the small sample size. Larger studies would be needed to quantify the impact of such a program on prescribing appropriateness. Given the small sample size, assessing changes in student confidence was the most appropriate thing to measure. A major strength of the program was the immediate feedback that was provided to the medical students. I also think that the use of focus groups to gather feedback was really important, especially since this was a pilot program.

Other studies focusing on prescribing education for medical students have shown positive results as well. Medical students participating in a ‘near-peer’ prescribing education program reported increased confidence in their prescribing knowledge and skills after attending the tutorials.⁴ Similarly, results from medical students participating in a teaching program on practical prescribing showed that their knowledge of pharmacotherapy, drug information, and prescribing skills was significantly improved.⁵

Educators should pay attention to this pilot study it appears to be a well-designed educational program intended to improve the confidence and skills of future physicians. In particular, I would recommend educators replicate the content of the tutorials and providing immediate feedback. In this instance, medical students are getting to practice real-life scenarios using clinical cases. I believe the best practices of instructional design are being upheld. The material is presented in the form of tutorials, the instructor tests the student’s knowledge on what has been taught through the clinical cases, and students can reflect on their performance based on immediate feedback. Educators should take into account the challenges of offering this program due to time constraints during demanding clinical rotations. My recommendation would be to initiate the prescribing program earlier in the medical school curriculum (perhaps during an early practice experience) and to reduce the weekly workload required. One medical school has already implemented “Safe Prescribing Teaching” earlier in their curriculum, resulting in students feeling remarkably more confident in prescribing situations.⁶ This strategy allows students to revisit and build on the knowledge they learn each week and would likely yield even better results.

 References

1. Rothwell C, Burford B, Morrison J, et al. Junior doctors prescribing: enhancing their learning in practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012 Feb;73(2):194-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2011.04061.x. PMID: 21752067; PMCID: PMC3269578.
2. Pearson S, Smith AJ, Rolfe IE, Moulds RF, Shenfield GM. Intern Prescribing for Common Clinical Conditions. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2000;5(2):141-150. doi: 10.1023/A
3. George JT, McGrane DJ, Warriner D, et al; TOPDOC Study Team. Protocol for a national audit on self-reported confidence levels, training requirements and current practice among trainee doctors in the UK: the Trainees Own Perception of Delivery of Care in Diabetes (TOPDOC) Study. BMC Med Educ. 2010 Jul 27;10:54. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-54.
4. Gibson KR, Qureshi ZU, Ross MT, Maxwell SR. Junior doctor-led 'near-peer' prescribing education for medical students. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Jan;77(1):122-9. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12147. PMID: 23617320; PMCID: PMC3895353.
5. Javadi MR, Khezrian M, Sadeghi A, Hajimiri SH, Eslami K. An Interprofessional Collaboration between Medicine and Pharmacy Schools: Designing and Evaluating a Teaching Program on Practical Prescribing. J Res Pharm Pract. 2017 Jul-Sep;6(3):178-181. doi: 10.4103/jrpp.JRPP_17_16. PMID: 29026844; PMCID: PMC5632939.
6. Lloyd N. Pharmacist-led teaching as a longitudinal theme for medical school curriculums - a solution for reducing prescribing errors in junior doctors? BMC Med Educ. 2019 May 29;19(1):173. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1632-9.

An Apple a Day: A Parental Education Program to Reduce Childhood Obesity

by Trenton Goff, M.S., Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy

Review and Summary of:  Gomes AI, Barros L, Pereira AI, Roberto MS. Effectiveness of a parental school-based intervention to improve young children's eating patterns: a pilot study. Public Health Nutr. 2018 Sep;21(13):2485-2496.

The percentage of children and adults who are obese continue to climb in the United States and worldwide.  The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that obesity has nearly tripled since 1975, with more than 650 million adults considered obese and 1.9 billion adults overweight in 2016.  Moreover, 38 million children under the age of 5 were considered obese in 2019.¹ As a student pharmacist, I am interested in weight management because so many chronic illnesses are the result of obesity.  There are diet pills and weight loss drugs aplenty, but medications are generally NOT the healthiest options.² While obesity may be a physical sign of disease, the real problems lie in the harmful metabolic changes that develop after weight gain, and children are not immune.  Young children depend on their parents, or guardians, to provide them with daily meals and nutrition.  A recent study conducted in Portugal caught my eye because the researchers created a school-based parental education program to improve children’s eating patterns and behaviors.³ Targeting and educating individuals, adults and children, before the onset of chronic complications, is the best chance we have at combating the obesity epidemic.  Giving parents the tools necessary to make healthy dietary choices for their children would be a step in the right direction.  Developing healthy eating habits early in life can have an impact on the rest of a child’s life.

In this longitudinal cohort study, parents of children 3-to 6-year-old who attended a public kindergarten were assigned to one of three groups: Complete Intervention Group (CIG), Minimal Intervention Group (MIG), and a Control Group (CG).  In the CIG, the primary instructional intervention was the “Red Apple” curriculum, which consisted of 90-minute educational sessions every other week for a total of four sessions.  These sessions focused on the young child’s growth and development, nutrition guidelines, and strategies for parents to promote healthy eating behaviors in their children.  In addition to the in-person instruction, the CIG was also given “homework assignments” to practice what was learned and a weekly newsletter was distributed to parents.  The MIG was provided with only one nutritional counseling session, one “homework assignment”, and one follow-up newsletter.  The CG was given no nutritional or behavioral instruction. All parents completed a series of evaluations and surveys at baseline.  Parents were evaluated on their self-efficacy in promoting healthy food intake, their ability to rate their child’s current weight against CDC standards, their nutritional knowledge, and recognize the healthy and unhealthy eating habits of their children.  The initial evaluations were meant to provide a baseline for follow-up analysis upon completion of the intervention.

Immediately following, 6-months, and 1-year after the educational program, parents in the three groups completed the same surveys they were given at baseline.  Nutritional knowledge and parent self-efficacy improved in both the CIG and MIG at the conclusion of the intervention and these improvements persisted 1 year later.  Conversely, nutritional knowledge and parental self-efficacy actually decreased in the CG during the same assessment periods.  Healthy food intake also increased in the CIG at the completion of the intervention, but the improvement did not persist at the six-month and one-year follow-up assessments.

This study, and the “Red Apple” curriculum, was very comprehensive.  The authors provide a detailed account of their intervention and results and clearly discuss the limitations and barriers that were observed in their study.  Participant recruitment and attrition, for instance, were key issues that resulted in a smaller than expected sample size in the intervention group.  The curriculum was well developed and could be used in other settings.  The curriculum included group discussions after each session and at-home assignments both of which support long-term knowledge retention.

From an instructional design perspective, I noticed a few key issues with the “Red Apple” program.  An outline of the curriculum was provided in the article.  Each session had a theme and particular objectives to cover, which is important, but the objectives reflect the intent of the instructor.  Objectives should state what the learner is expected to do and this allows the creation of assessment to measure their learning.  For example, “encourage parents to implement dietary and behavior changes according to age-appropriate strategies,” could be changed to “Parents will be able to verbalize two strategies to implement healthy dietary changes in their child.”  This example provides a clearer expectation of what the learner is expected to do.

The “Red Apple” program is a well-designed curriculum for universal application, but it does not assess the learner’s prior knowledge to tailor the curriculum.  The authors discuss this issue of individualization by stating, “…the general objectives of the sessions may not fully match the needs of all participants.” Perhaps a better approach for this program would be to use the pre-intervention surveys to modify the content and learning activities.  In this way, the program can be customized to meet the individual learner’s needs.

In any educational program, it’s important to gain the learner’s attention.  In one study conducted in England, nearly 80% of parents of obese/overweight children did not perceive their child’s weight to be a health risk.⁴ The “Red Apple” curriculum taught parents how to calculate their child’s BMI and how to interpret the results, but there may not have been enough attention given to the long-term health risks associated with elevated BMI.  Gaining attention by discussing the health concerns associated with obesity in children may increase the learner’s motivation to adopt behavior change.

While the “Red Apple” program was an intensive and comprehensive course in nutrition, healthy eating, and behavior modification for parents of young children, unfortunately, improvements in dietary habits did not persist long-term.  Thus, to have a sustained impact, we’ll need to consider additional ways of reinforcing learning and the development of healthy habits over time.  Educating parents on how to improve their children’s health is a noble endeavor.  Adequate instruction on diet and health in children could improve the health of an entire generation.  Children have the most to gain from developing healthy lifestyles – and the most to lose from unhealthy ones. 

References

1. World Health Organization. Obesity and Overweight. Key Facts [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland.: World Health Organization. 2020 April [cited 2020 Nov 2].
2. Grundlingh J, Dargan PI, El-Zanfaly M, Wood DM. 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP): a weight loss agent with significant acute toxicity and risk of death. J Med Toxicol. 2011 Sep;7(3):205-12.
3. Gomes AI, Barros L, Pereira AI, Roberto MS. Effectiveness of a parental school-based intervention to improve young children's eating patterns: a pilot study. Public Health Nutr. 2018 Sep;21(13):2485-2496.
4. Park MH, Falconer CL, Saxena S, et al. Perceptions of health risk among parents of overweight children: a cross-sectional study within a cohort. Prev Med. 2013 Jul;57(1):55-9.

Integrating LGBTQIA+ Health Education into the Curricula of Professional Healthcare Students

by K. R. Fairley, Doctor of Pharmacy student, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy

Summary and Analysis of: Kelley L, Chou CL, Dibble SL, and Robertson PA. A Critical Intervention in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health: Knowledge and Attitude Outcomes Among Second-Year Medical Students, Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2008; 20:3: 248-253.

It is estimated that up to 4.5% of the U.S. population actively identifies themselves as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community.¹  When broken down, this equates to nearly 15 million Americans, being found across all major racial, ethnic, religious, and age-based groups.² Despite these staggering figures, however, the LGBTQIA+ community remains one of the most underserved populations in the United States when it comes to healthcare.³  The reasons for this disparity are multi-factorial, ranging from a lack of trust in providers due to previous discriminatory experiences in the healthcare system to issues with accessing insurance coverage based on name changes or sex and gender differences.  While not the only cause of these disparities, the lack of provider knowledge and competence to furnish the appropriate care to this diverse group of individuals is a contributing factor. 

As a third-year pharmacy student, the topic of LGBTQIA+ health has long been of importance to me.  I think that, over the course of this past year, that importance has only grown, especially after witnessing some of the disparities play out first-hand during my clinical rotations. The discrimination faced by members of the LGBTQIA+ community in the healthcare system, including pharmacies, is just as prevalent now as ever. I knew immediately when the topic of this essay was announced that I wanted to use this time and space to talk about a learning intervention for professional healthcare students to educate them about the needs of LGBTQIA+ patients, as well as to discuss why learning interventions such as this one are so important.

Image credit: Discoversociety. “Focus: Looking Critically at Gender and Sexuality.” Discover Society, 5 Dec. 2016, discoversociety.org/2016/12/06/focus-critical-perspectives-in-gender-and-sexuality/.

Originally published in 2008, the study by Leah Kelley and colleagues describes one of the very first interventions of its kind to incorporate LGBT health education into the curriculum.  This educational event was part of the second year Doctor of Medicine program at the University of California San Francisco.  The goals of the intervention were three-fold: (1) To increase the students’ awareness and address existing assumptions about LGBT people, (2) To highlight disparities in health care delivery to which LGBT patients, and (3) To underscore the important role that physicians can play in dispelling these disparities to optimize LGBT health care.³  In order to achieve these goals, the directors of the course developed a three-pronged intervention, consisting of a syllabus, a 1-hour patient panel, and a 1-hour small group session. The syllabus was distributed to the students prior to class and served as a brief introduction to the educational event, while also emphasizing basic definitions and health hazards associated with homophobia.  The 1-hour patient panel was organized based on prior studies that indicated direct contact between students and patients helped medical students form more positive impressions of marginalized populations. The panel consisted of three voluntary participants: an older gay man, a middle-aged lesbian, and a young transgender man.  Each participant gave a short presentation, which was then followed by an interactive Q+A session with the students.  The 1-hour small group sessions focused on working through three case studies designed to highlight several LGBT health issues.  Additionally, a pre-and post-class survey was created to assess if student attitudes had changed as a result of the intervention.

At the conclusion of the two-hour course, more than 90% of students agreed that the combination of the syllabus, patient panel, and small-group cases helped to educate them about relevant LGBT issues. The majority of student comments left on the surveys were overwhelmingly positive, with most of the students indicating that hearing about personal experiences of the LGBTQIA+ panel members was most helpful in terms of identifying and addressing unconscious biases toward the LGBT community.  The results of the pre- and post-class surveys indicated that the students experienced a significant increase in their general knowledge of the challenges that LGBT individuals face in the healthcare system. They also showed an increased level of awareness about sexual orientation, gender identity, and other related attributes relevant to clinical practice.¹

A couple of the strengths of this study included (1) the integration of three different but cohesive teaching interventions to achieve the stated goal and (2) the inclusion of face-to-face contact between the medical students and members of the LGBTQIA+ community.  A few limitations were: (1) the short-term follow-up period, (2) the ability to measure a change of attitude as an outcome, and (3) the limited definitions of sexual orientation, attraction, and identity when describing the LGBTQIA+ population.  The authors in this paper continually made references to the LGBT community as “homosexual”, which is not true for every self-identified LGBTQIA+ individual.  I think the study could have been more comprehensive/ inclusive had the researchers also addressed the problems of transphobia and biphobia, as well as some of the more common issues faced by non-binary and asexual individuals in the healthcare system.  In terms of the outcome measures for this study, I believe that the investigators measured them in the best way available, given that a change in attitude is difficult to measure and prone to social desirability bias. I would have liked to have seen a longer follow-up period to this study to evaluate just how much the intervention affected the students during clinical rotations and, ultimately, their practice habits as healthcare providers.

Regardless of its limitations, this study truly has made waves in the medical education community since it was first published. I found over 200 articles citing this paper as well as two books. I believe that educators should take this study as an outline when developing courses to educate healthcare students about the challenges faced by minority groups, including but not limited to the LGBTQIA+ community.  Integrating a working knowledge about the causes and consequences of health disparities, discrimination, and unconscious bias into the professional curriculum can help increase access to healthcare and trust in providers.⁴ 

The authors state:  “It is essential for students to understand that a common causative factor in these health risks is not necessarily in merely being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender: it is living as a LGBT person in a homophobic society.”³ Or, more generally, in a LGBTQ-phobic society.  This remark, I think, is the central message that educators should take away from this paper and it states clearly why educational interventions are so crucial.  More schools (including schools of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing) should consider adding similar interventions to their curriculums.

References

1. Newport F. In U.S., Estimate of LGBT Population Rises to 4.5%. com, Gallup, 29 Oct. 2020,  Accessed November 5, 2020.
2. Macapagel K, Bhatia R, Greene GJ. Differences in Healthcare Access, Use and Experiences Within a Community Sample of Racially Diverse Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Emerging Adults, LGBT Health 2016; 3 (6): 434-442.
3. Kelley l , Chou CL, Dibble SL, and Robertson PA. A Critical Intervention in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health: Knowledge and Attitude Outcomes Among Second-Year Medical Students, Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2008; 20 (3): 248-253.
4. Rowe d, Ng YC, O’Keefe L, Crawford D. Providers’ Attitudes and Knowledge of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health, Federal Practitioner 2007; 34(11): 28–34.

Mental Health First Aid Training for Student Pharmacists

by Taylor Williams, Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy 

Summary and Analysis of:  El-Den S, Chen TF, Moles RJ, O’Reilly C. Assessing Mental Health First Aid Skills Using Simulated Patients. Am J Pharm Educ 2018; 82 (2): Article 622.

One in six people in the United States uses psychotropic medications and psychotropic medications representing 13% of the top 300 most frequently prescribed medications in the United States.¹  In a 2012 survey designed to characterize the relationship between individuals with mental health conditions and community pharmacists, approximately 80% of individuals and family caregivers indicated they received their medications for mental health conditions from a community pharmacy.²  Given that community pharmacists see patients with psychiatric illnesses every day, it is imperative that student pharmacists know how to skillfully interact with these patients. Many prescriptions have refills for up to three months, so these patients may see their pharmacist more than any other healthcare provider. This is why it is essential that student pharmacists have adequate training on how to interact with people who suffer from mental illness.

However, a survey of pharmacy schools reported that only 9.5% of the didactic course content was dedicated to psychiatric topics.³  Furthermore, a survey of North Carolina pharmacists, concluded that despite the volume of prescriptions with mental health-related medications every day, a significant portion of licensed pharmacists indicated that the emphasis on mental health in their training was inadequate.⁴  These results suggest that pharmacy programs are not providing student pharmacists with enough training to become mental health first aid responders. So how are we preparing our future pharmacists to serve patients with mental illness? While being knowledgeable about psychiatric medications is essential, many student pharmacists have not been trained to manage a mental health crisis.  The methods and criteria used to ensure students have mastered these skills before graduating do not appear to be adequate.

An educational program implemented at The University of Sydney explored different teaching strategies to train student pharmacists to become mental health first aid (MHFA) responders.⁵ One hundred and sixty-three fourth-year bachelors of pharmacy students in their final semester before earning their degree completed MFHA training, with 88% of the students completing the post-training confidence level evaluations following the simulations.⁵ Postnatal depression (PND) and suicide vignettes were randomly assigned to 36 students and their simulation performances and MHFA training were compared to their self-evaluations.⁵ The study compared the teacher feedback with post-training self-evaluations. The trainers developed an assessment rubric based on the Mental Health First Aid Action Plan. This rubric was completed by the simulated patients to assess students’ MHFA skills during the roleplays.  The encounters were audio recorded in order to facilitate performance feedback and to give students an opportunity to self-assess their own performance.⁵ The study authors concluded that after receiving MHFA training most students overestimated or underestimated their ability to appropriately respond in a mental health first aid crisis. While these results show there is much work to be done, it also gives insight into how we can better educate students.

 

Learning is an active process. We learn by doing. 

Only knowledge that is used sticks in your mind. 

– Duke Corregie

 

The key to this educational program and others is the realization that “knowing” is different than “knowing how”.⁵  In other words, while students may know what to do in a mental health crisis, they may not know how to respond when confronted with a patient in crisis. Indeed, over 95% of pharmacy students who participated in this study agreed or strongly agreed that they were confident after participating in the suicide vignette. Moreover, only 50% of students took the appropriate actions, which involved both referring the patient to an appropriate health care professional and not leaving the simulated patient alone.⁵  This suggests the best way to assess pharmacy students is to not depend solely on written or verbal evaluations of their knowledge, but we must evaluate their actions when placed in real-life scenarios. This study had notable limitations, one being that the sample was only from one university.  Further, there were only two types of mental health crisis scenarios evaluated. Thus, the results might not be generalizable to students attending other schools or when addressing other mental health problems. However, despite these limitations, the study hypothesized the reason the student’s scores did not align with their self-assessment may be due students felt uncomfortable providing help to suicidal persons. None-the-less, MHFA training with the addition of simulation proved to be an effective teaching method.

There are many benefits to role-playing/simulation training. The Northern Illinois University Center of Teaching and Learning explained some advantages of using role-play.⁶ Some of the benefits include motivating and engaging students, enhancing current teaching strategies, providing real-world scenarios to help students learn, and providing opportunities for critical observations of peers.⁶  Simulation training gives students the opportunity to receive positive and constructive feedback from their teachers.

In a recent study that surveyed mentally ill patients, they found that 75% of respondents reported they seldom or never receive assistance from their pharmacist regarding their medication when they pick up their prescription at a community pharmacy, and 40% of participants felt that they did not have a strong relationship with their pharmacist.¹  As future pharmacists, we should work to eliminate barriers to care. I feel the best way to do so is to actively engage students through role-playing/ simulation scenarios paired with training while in school similar to the MHFA developed by the University of Sydney.

This study reinforces the effectiveness of using simulation training as a teaching tool. Simulation training allows pharmacy students to practice in a setting similar to where they will be practicing. During simulation training, students are given feedback on their performance and have an opportunity to correct problems. Becoming a mental health first responder takes both knowledge and experience. By implementing simulation training into the core curriculum in pharmacy school, students will be better prepared for their future roles.

References

 

1. Moore CH, Powell BD , and Kyle JA. The Role of the Community Pharmacist in Mental Healt U.S. Pharmacist 2018; 43 (11): 13-20. Accessed October 14,2020 
2. Carley CF and Stimmel GL. Characterizing the Relationships Between Individuals with Mental Health Conditions and Community Pharmacy . CPNP Foundation, December 2012. Accessed October 14, 2020
3. Cates ME, Monk-Tutor MR, and Drummond SO. Mental Health and Psychiatric Pharmacy Instructions in US Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy Am J Pharm Educ 2007; 71 (1): Article 04 Accessed November 1,2020
4. Goodman CS, Smith TJ. and LaMotte JM. A Survey of Pharmacists’ Perceptions of The Adequacy of Their Training For Addressing Mental Health-Related Medication Issues. The Mental Health Clinician 2017; 7(2): 69-73. Accessed November 1,2020
5. El-Den S, Chen TF, Moles RJ, and O’Reilly C. Assessing Mental Health First Aid Skills Using Simulated Patients Am J Pharm Educ 2018; 82 (2): Article 6222. Accessed October 14,2020
6. Role Playing. Northern Illinois University Center for Innovative Teaching and earning. 2012. Accessed October 14,2020

Improving Scientific Reasoning Levels through Active Learning Strategies

by Hannah Schmoock, Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate, University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy

Summary and Analysis of: Marušić M and Dragojević A. Assessing Pharmacy Students' Scientific Reasoning After Completing a Physics Course Taught Using Active-Learning Methods. [Internet] American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2020: 84(8): Article 7610

This article piqued my interest because it aimed to show how implementing active learning methods into physics courses could improve scientific reasoning.¹ Active learning is a widely used instructional method in our pharmacy curriculum at the University of Mississippi and I find active learning techniques useful in helping to deepen my understanding of the topics we discuss. As future pharmacists, we are expected to be able to think critically when it comes to devising solutions to complex patient cases and medication regimens. Using active learning in pharmacy curricula, students build their scientific reasoning skills which will be very important throughout their careers. This study aimed to compare two groups, an active-learning group, and a traditional-learning group. The active-learning group received a traditional 60-minute lecture followed by 30 minutes of active learning activities during each class meeting. The traditional-learning group received a traditional 90-minute lecture-style class.

This study took place from 2013 to 2018 in a Physics for Pharmacists course taught by the Faculty of Chemistry and Technology at the University of Split in the Republic of Croatia. A total of 150 first-year pharmacy students participated in the course over the five years. In the first 3 years of the study, the active learning method was used. During the active learning activity, the instructors described an experiment to the students and had them predict all of the possible outcomes that might result from performing the experiment. The experiment was then be performed by the instructor. After the experiment, the students were allowed to repeat the experiment themselves and ask questions. During the 2017 and 2018 academic years, the traditional lecture style was used. This meant that no time was allotted to the active learning activity. Over the 5 years during which this study was conducted, the same professor was responsible for all instruction, and the same course syllabus was used. Each year the students were assessed before and after completing the physics course using Lawson's Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning. This assessment consists of 12 two-tiered multiple-choice questions where students are awarded points for correctly answering the question and also correctly identifying the reason for that answer.¹ This test helped differentiate how the different teaching methods affected the students' scientific reasoning skills. Based on the results of the test, students were classified as either a concrete, transitional, or formal learner, with formal being the highest level of learning.² A formal thinker is defined as being able to understand different variables within a problem as well as explain how these variables relate to each other.

The results of this study revealed that the active learning group had a significant improvement in a students’ level of scientific reasoning and also the ability of students to transition to a higher level of scientific thinking.² The percentage of formal thinkers in the active learning group increased from a baseline of 14.4% to 33.3%. In the traditional instructional group, the percentage of formal thinkers remained stagnant at 13.3%. When comparing the active learning group to the traditional group, performance in the physics course was significantly improved, with the mean grade point average of 4.0 on a 5.0 scale in the active learning group versus 2.8 in the traditional learning group.

The strengths of this study include the use of a control to compare the results of the two teaching approaches as well as the use of a pre- and post-assessment to assess each students’ scientific reasoning level. The LCTSR is a validated and widely used tool to assess scientific reasoning. Some of the weaknesses of the study include the fact that the control and intervention cohorts were concurrently conducted during the same academic year. It’s possible that the two groups had very different experiences in other course work that might explain the different outcomes.  By having both comparison groups happen simultaneously, students would have experienced the same course curriculum and instructors. 

A similar study by Styers was conducted in 2018; however, the investigators used Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) to assess critical thinking rather than the LCTSR.³  While the findings were similar, the Styers study did not use a control group.³ A third study by Latif and Mumtaz looked at implementing active learning using a debate type approach.⁴ This study also showed positive outcomes, but this was only on the basis of how the student’s perceived the growth in their critical thinking skills. No test to objectively measure critical thinking was administered. 

I believe this study provides strong evidence that implementing active learning activities can help improve scientific reasoning. From my own experiences, I personally found active learning activities in my physics courses and other science-based courses helped me to be more successful because it made me think more about the topic. The goal of initiating active learning is to stimulate thinking and allow students to make mistakes. Every educator should strive to include active learning activities in their instruction to help mold future scientific thinkers. 

References

1. Khoirina M, Cari C, Sukarmin. Identify Students’ Scientific Reasoning Ability at Senior High School [Internet]. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2018; 1097: 012024.
2. Marušić M and Dragojević A. Assessing Pharmacy Students' Scientific Reasoning After Completing a Physics Course Taught Using Active-Learning Methods. [Internet] Am J Pharm Educ 2020: 84(8): Article 7610.
3. Styers ML. Active Learning in Flipped Life Science Courses Promotes Development of Critical Thinking Skills [Internet]. CBE-Life Sciences Education. 2018; 17 (3): [cited 2020Oct16]. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-11-0332
4. Latif R and Mumtaz S. Learning through debate during problem-based learning: an active learning strategy [Internet]. Adv Physiol Educ 2017; 41: 390-394.