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:Background:The 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. Methods:A 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. Results:The 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. Conclusions:Junior 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:Introduction Writing a case report increases one's knowledge about a particular disease condition, demonstrates intellectual curiosity and commitment to scientific inquiry and the ability to follow through on scholarly projects. Despite several articles and journal-specific instructions published concerning case report writing, none have been evaluated by their intended audience. The aim of this study was to get junior doctors to evaluate an online presentation as part of the process of developing a beginner's guide to writing a clinical case report. Materials and methods In response to our previous studies an online presentation concerning how to write a clinical case report was provided for junior doctors. Junior doctors were invited by email to look at the online presentation and complete an online evaluation form thereafter. The questions were adapted from the Evaluation Form for Teaching and Presentations provided by the Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board. Data was analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Results Sixty-five doctors looked at the presentation and completed the online evaluation form. All agreed that the objectives of the presentation were identified and met. Sixty-four (98.5%) agreed that it was effective and clear. Sixty percent indicated that they found the information and instructions useful. An additional 13.85% found the whole presentation useful without specifying any aspect. Eight percent found the summary slide useful, 4.62% found the case selection criteria slide to be useful and 4.62% found the permission and patient consenting slide useful. Twenty percent would like the inclusion of examples of good abstracts and case reports, 13.85% would like more teaching sessions, and 13.85% would like improvements to the slide-presentation format. Overall, 64 junior doctors (98.46%) remarked that the presentation was good, very good or excellent. Conclusions This study has demonstrated the importance of evaluation of teaching material by junior doctors while developing a beginner's guide to writing a clinical case report. Once the above action points and limitations have been taken into account, further repeat evaluations by junior doctors need to be undertaken while developing a robust beginner's guide to writing a clinical case report.

Project description:National Eating Disorders Association conducts a NEDAwareness week every year, during which it publishes content on social media and news aimed to raise awareness of eating disorders. Measuring the impact of these actions is vital for maximizing the effectiveness of such interventions. This study is an effort to empirically measure the change in behavior of users who engage with NEDAwareness content, and compare the detected changes between campaigns in two different years. We analyze a total of 35,895 tweets generated during two campaigns of NEDAwareness campaigns in 2019 and 2020. In order to assess the reach of each campaign, we consider the users participating in the campaigns and their number of followers, as well as retweeting engagement. We use the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) text modeling and causal impact analysis in order to gauge the change in self-expression of users who have interacted with the NEDAwareness content, compared to a baseline group of users. We further enrich our understanding of the users by extracting gender information from their display names. We find that, despite large media corporations (such as MTV and Teen Vogue) participating in the campaign, it is governmental and nonprofit accounts who are among the accounts that attract the most retweets. Whereas the most influential accounts were well-connected in 2019, the 2020 campaign saw little retweeting between such accounts, negatively impacting the reach of the material. Both campaigns engaged women at around 40% and men 17%, supporting previous research showing women to be more likely to share their experiences with eating disorders. Further, women were more likely to mention other health topics within the 15 days of the intervention, including pregnancy and abortion, as well as depression and anxiety, and to discuss the developing COVID pandemic in 2020. Despite the positive message of the campaign, we find that the users who have engaged with this content were more likely to mention the linguistic categories concerning anxiety and risk. Thus, we illustrate the complex, gender-specific effects of NEDAwareness online health intervention campaign on the continued self-expression of its audience and provide actionable insights for potential improvement of such public health efforts.

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