Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17955340›Full record

ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2008

Views of pharmacists and mentors on experiential learning for pharmacist supplementary prescribing trainees.

Johnson George, Jennifer Cleland, Christine M Bond, Dorothy J McCaig, I T Scott Cunningham, H Lesley Diack, Derek C Stewart

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Views of the Scottish general public on non-medical prescribing.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2013
    Article
  4. Educating nonmedical prescribers.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Johnson GeorgeSchool of Pharmacy, The Robert Gordon University, Schoolhill, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
Jennifer Cleland
Christine M Bond
Dorothy J McCaig
I T Scott Cunningham
H Lesley Diack
Derek C Stewart

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the views and experiences of pharmacists and their mentoring designated medical practitioners (DMPs) about the 'period of learning in practice' (PLP) as part of supplementary prescribing (SP) training.

methodTwo focus groups (n = 5 and 7) of SP pharmacists were organised in Scotland. The experiences and views of DMPs (n = 13) were explored using one-to-one telephone interviews. The focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework approach.

main outcome measuresViews and experiences of pharmacists and DMPs about the PLP.

resultsPlanning the PLP in consultation with the DMP was found to be crucial for an optimal learning experience. Pharmacists who did not have a close working relationship with the medical team had difficulties in identifying a DMP and organising their PLP. Participants stressed the importance of focusing on and achieving the core competencies for prescribers during the PLP. Input from doctors involved in the training of others, review of consultation videos, and formal independent assessment including clinical assessment at the end of the PLP might improve the quality of the PLP. Forums for discussing experiences during the PLP and gathering information might be valuable.

conclusionOur findings have implications for prescribing training for pharmacists in the future. The PLP should focus on core competencies with input from doctors involved in the training of others and have a formal assessment of consultation skills. Support for pharmacists in organising the PLP and forums for discussing experiences during the PLP would be valuable.

Indexed as

PharmacistsPhysiciansAdultDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHumansInterprofessional RelationsLearningMalePharmacies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.