Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20642558›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2010

Teaching of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics in UK medical schools: current status in 2009.

Lelia O'Shaughnessy, Inam Haq, Simon Maxwell, Martin Llewelyn

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lelia O'ShaughnessyDivision of Medicine, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, East Sussex, UK.
Inam Haq
Simon Maxwell
Martin Llewelyn
Brighton and Sussex Medical School · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

what is already known about this subjectJunior doctors feel poorly prepared by their training in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics and commonly make prescribing errors. Since 1993 the General Medical Council's guidance on undergraduate medical education 'Tomorrow's Doctors' has emphasized the integration of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics teaching within the medical curriculum. With the publication of a new version of Tomorrow's Doctors in 2009, medical schools will be further revising their Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics teaching. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Although we know what the recommendations for undergraduate teaching of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics teaching are, there are no published data describing what is currently happening in UK medical schools. This paper describes the course structures, volume and range of teaching and assessment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics in the UK in 2009. Our data provide a foundation for schools looking to revise the Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Teaching in the light of Tomorrow's Doctors 2009.

aimTo describe the current structure, delivery and assessment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (CPT) teaching in UK medical schools.

methodsAn online questionnaire was distributed to the person with overall responsibility for CPT teaching at all UK medical schools in June 2009.

resultsThirty of the 32 UK medical schools responded. 60% of schools have a CPT course although in 72% this was an integrated vertical theme. At 70% of schools pharmacologists have overall responsibility for CPT teaching (clinical 67%, non-clinical 33%); at 20% teaching is run by a non-specialist clinician and at 7% by a pharmacist. Teaching is commonly delivered by NHS clinicians (87%) and clinical pharmacists (80%) using lectures (90%) but additionally 50% of schools use e-Learning and 63% have a student formulary. CPT is assessed throughout the curriculum at many schools through written, practical examinations and course work. 90% of schools have specific CPT content in their written examinations. 90% of respondents believed that their students were 'fairly' to 'well' prepared for the foundation year but only 37% of schools gather data on the competence of their graduates.

conclusionsCPT teaching in UK medical schools is very diverse. Most schools do not assess the performance of their graduates as prescribers and there is a lack of evidence that many of the teaching approaches employed are suitable for the development of prescribing skills. It is vital that developments in CPT teaching are driven by validated, real-world assessments of the prescribing skills of medical students and newly qualified doctors.

Indexed as

TherapeuticsCurriculumEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansPharmacology, ClinicalSchools, MedicalStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID20642558
PMCPMC2909818
OpenAlexW1934891461

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.