ArticleBMC medical education2016
Safe prescribing training provision for junior doctors: is this optimal?
Article in BMC medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- What does a good prescribing induction for the newly qualified doctor look like?Future healthcare journal · 2020Article
- The role of undergraduate teaching, learning and a national prescribing safety assessment in preparation for practical prescribing: UK medical students' perspective.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- UK medical students' perspectives on practical prescribing teaching and learning provisions: a cross-sectional survey.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Safe and effective prescribing with dyslexia.BMC medical education · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to determine the training provisions in practical safe prescribing for foundation doctors in NHS hospitals located in the South Thames region.
methodsA web-based questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to all 1762 foundation doctors in the South Thames Foundation School (STFS) region. In addition, a separate questionnaire was distributed to prescribing training Leads at 15 NHS Hospital Trusts. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis was performed on qualitative data.
resultsTrainers: 10 Prescribing Leads (67 %) responded. Of the 9 NHS Trusts that offered safe prescribing training in their induction programme, 5 included a practical prescribing session. By the end of the foundation year, 6 NHS Trusts had provided at least one dedicated practical prescribing session for F1s compared with 2 NHS Trusts for F2s. Trainees: A total of 124 foundation trainees (7.2 %) responded (69 F1s and 55 F2s). 87 % of F1s received dedicated training in safe prescribing at their Trust induction (n = 60) in comparison to 49 % of F2s (n = 27). 80 % of F1s (n = 55) had a practical prescribing session during induction versus 27 % of F2s (n = 15). The difference was significant, X (2) (1, N = 124) = 34.23, p <0.0001. Emerging themes from qualitative data included, recognition of medical education as a continuum, importance of working relationships with pharmacists and neglect of F2s.
conclusionsThere appears to be a lack of emphasis on the training of F2 doctors in practical safe prescribing compared with F1 doctors. There should be standardisation of safe prescribing training provisions, particularly in the induction period and for F2 doctors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.