Dataset Information

A pilot survey of junior doctors' attitudes and awareness around medication review: time to change our educational approach?

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Our aim was to explore junior doctors' attitudes and awareness around concepts related to medication review, in order to find ways to change the culture for reviewing, altering and stopping inappropriate or unnecessary medicines. Having already demonstrated the value of team working with senior doctors and pharmacists and the use of a medication review tool, we are now looking to engage first year clinicians and undergraduates in the process. METHOD:An online survey about medication review was distributed among all 42 foundation year one (FY1) doctors at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in November 2014. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULTS:Twenty doctors completed the survey (48%). Of those, 17 believed that it was the pharmacist's duty to review medicines; and 15 of 20 stated the general practitioner (GP). Sixteen of 20 stated that they would consult a senior doctor first before stopping medication. Eighteen of 20 considered the GP and consultant to be responsible for alterations, rather than themselves. Sixteen of 20 respondents were not aware of the availability of a medication review tool. Seventeen of 20 felt that more support from senior staff would help them become involved with medication review. CONCLUSIONS:Junior doctors report feeling uncomfortable altering mediations without consulting a senior first. They appear to be building confidence with prescribing in their first year but not about the medication review process or questioning the drugs already prescribed. Consideration should be given to what we have termed a 'bottom-up' educational approach to provide early experience of and change the culture around medication review, to include the education of undergraduate and foundation doctors and pharmacists.

SUBMITTER: Jubraj B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4516007 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A pilot survey of junior doctors' attitudes and awareness around medication review: time to change our educational approach?

Jubraj Barry B Marvin Vanessa V Poots Alan J AJ Patel Shreena S Bovill Iñaki I Barnett Nina N Issen Laurel L Bell Derek D

European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice 20150603 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>Our aim was to explore junior doctors' attitudes and awareness around concepts related to medication review, in order to find ways to change the culture for reviewing, altering and stopping inappropriate or unnecessary medicines. Having already demonstrated the value of team working with senior doctors and pharmacists and the use of a medication review tool, we are now looking to engage first year clinicians and undergraduates in the process.<h4>Method</h4>An online survey abo ...[more]

PMID: 26246893

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoor adherence to antihypertensive drugs is a major cause of unsatisfactory blood pressure control. Hypertension doctors play an integral role in improving medication adherence in hypertensive patients. Although most existing studies have recognized the status quo and influencing factors of medication adherence, little attention has been paid to hypertension doctors' awareness and practice in hypertension management. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate hypertension doctors' awareness and practice of medication adherence in hypertensive patients.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional survey. A self-reported questionnaire was developed and sent to hypertension doctors in Hunan province, China, between May 1, 2022 and July 1, 2022. Univariate and generalized linear models were used to identify the factors influencing hypertension doctors' awareness and practice. The correlation between awareness and practice was determined using Spearman's correlation coefficient.ResultsIn total, 236 valid questionnaires were collected (valid response rate, 73.5%). Of the respondents, 44.1% were chief physicians and 64.4% were females. Approximately half of the respondents were ≥40 years old and had over 14 years of working experience. Most respondents (87.7%) did not have hypertension, but 54.2% had a family history of hypertension. The average awareness and practice scores were 29.8 ± 8.8 and 39.4 ± 7.1, respectively, out of 50, with higher scores indicating higher levels of awareness or practice. More hypertension consultations and more antihypertensive prescriptions issued were associated with better awareness and practice among respondents (ps < 0.05). Respondents with higher education and professional titles had higher awareness (ps < 0.05). Moreover, respondents with 6-13 years of work experience had better practice than those with <5 years of work experience (p = 0.017). There was a significant correlation between hypertension doctors' awareness and practice of medication adherence in hypertensive patients (R = 0.682, p < 0.001). These findings indicate that misconceptions persist in hypertension doctors' awareness and practice of patient medication adherence.ConclusionHypertension doctors lack sufficient and correct awareness and practice of medication adherence in hypertensive patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this survey was to determine the level of awareness and understanding of peer review and peer review models amongst junior hospital doctors and whether this influences clinical decision-making.MethodsA 30-question online anonymous survey was developed aimed at determining awareness of peer review models and the purpose of peer review, perceived trustworthiness of different peer review models and the role of peer review in clinical decision-making. It was sent to 800 trainee doctors in medical specialties on the University College London Partners trainee database.ResultsThe response rate was (178/800) 22%. Most respondents were specialist registrars. Checking that research is conducted correctly (152/178, 85%) and the data interpreted correctly (148/178, 83%) were viewed as the most important purposes of peer review. Most respondents were aware of open (133/178, 75%), double-blind (125/178, 70%) and single-blind peer review (121/178, 68%). 101/178 (57%) had heard of collaborative, 87/178 (49%) of post publication and 29/178 (16%) of decoupled peer review. Of those who were aware of double-blind, single-blind open and collaborative peer review, 85 (68%), 82 (68%), 74 (56%) and 24 (24%), respectively, understood how they worked. The NEJM, Lancet and The BMJ were deemed to have most trustworthy peer review, 137/178 (77%), 129/178 (72%) and 115/178 (65%), respectively. That peer review had taken place was important for a journal content to be used for clinical decision-making 152/178 (85%), but the ability to see peer review reports was not as important 22/178 (12%). Most felt there was a need for peer review training and that this should be at the specialist registrar stage of training.ConclusionsJunior hospital doctors view peer review to be important as a means of quality control, but do not value the ability to scrutinize peer review themselves. The unquestioning acceptance of peer review as final validation in the field of medicine emphasises not only the responsibility held by medical journals to ensure peer review is done well but also the need to raise awareness amongst the medical community of the limitations of the current peer review process.

Project description:ObjectivesSimulation is widely employed to teach a range of skills, across healthcare professions and is most effective when embedded within a standarised curriculum. Although recommended by many governing bodies, establishing a national programme of simulation presents many challenges. Successful implementation requires a clear understanding of the priorities and needs of those it seeks to serve yet there are limited examples of how best to do this. This study aimed to develop an integrated national simulation-based educational programme for junior doctors in Scotland through a structed, multistep prioritisation process.DesignA series of action research cycles were undertaken to develop and evaluate a national simulation programme. This paper describes cycle 1, which employed a six-step structured approach to understand and prioritise learner needs.SettingThe study considered the educational needs of Scottish junior doctors in the UK Foundation Programme (UKFP).ParticipantsMultiple stakeholder groups were involved in each stage of the process including recent Scottish UKFP graduates, clinical educators, UKFP programme directors and postgraduate deans.ResultsKey stakeholders reviewed the 370 competencies in the UKFP curriculum and identified 18 initial competency areas. These 18 areas were subsequently prioritised through the analytical hierarchy process, resulting in a carefully ordered list of 12 competencies from which a targeted simulation-based educational programme could be developed.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to outline the methods of competency prioritisation to create a simulation curriculum that is integrated within a national curriculum in the medical education context. As well as demonstrating the practical steps of such a process, key implications for practice are identified. This robust approach to educational design also resulted in unexpected benefits, including educator and clinician acceptance and programme funding sustainability.

Dataset Information

A pilot survey of junior doctors' attitudes and awareness around medication review: time to change our educational approach?

Publications

A pilot survey of junior doctors' attitudes and awareness around medication review: time to change our educational approach?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets