Search

Objectives: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a key tool in healthcare education, assessing clinical skills and competencies. This study explores OSCE's impact on pharmacists' competence, confidence, and practice readiness, focusing on its role in professional development and long-term practice improvement., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among Qatar University pharmacy graduates with at least a year of practice experience. The survey included 10 items on a 4-point Likert scale to capture quantitative data, along with open-ended questions for more detailed reflections and qualitative insights. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS, and qualitative data were thematically analyzed through an inductive approach, with two researchers independently coded responses and identifying themes., Key Findings: Out of 75 eligible pharmacists, 46 responded (61.3% response rate). Over 85% reported that OSCE improved communication and interprofessional collaboration skills, and 80% felt it helped apply essential professional skills effectively. However, opinions varied on making OSCE a licensure requirement. Six main themes emerged: (i) Enhanced Interprofessional Collaboration Skills, (ii) Application of Professional Skills, (iii) Practical Application of Pharmacy Education, (iv) Adaptability for Evolving Healthcare Challenges, (v) Enhancement of Patient-Facing Communication Skills, and (vi) Identification of Personal Strengths and Weaknesses., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that OSCEs enhance pharmacists' clinical skills, communication, and practice readiness. Pharmacy programs should continue integrating OSCEs alongside other assessments for comprehensive evaluation. Policymakers are encouraged to explore OSCEs for licensure, ensuring standardization and evaluator training. Future research should assess OSCE's long-term impact on pharmacists' career development and patient outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Pharmacists play pivotal roles in improving vaccination rates. However, absence of vaccination-related undergraduate education impedes their ability for these roles. The study aims were to scope vaccination-related education in pharmacy colleges in the Middle East (ME) and to describe potential facilitators and barriers to vaccination administration education using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research., Methods: A multinational survey of pharmacy faculty across 14 Arabic-speaking ME countries, involving 132 colleges, examined vaccination education. Data collection involved contacting deans for faculty nominations. Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences., Results: The questionnaire response rate was 64.7% (89/132), with 89.9% of colleges including vaccination in their curricula. The topics commonly covered included vaccine development (n = 44, 97.8%), vaccine routes of administration (n = 43, 97.7%), and vaccine indications (n = 38, 95%). Planning and marketing vaccination programs (n = 35, 77.8%), documentation and record-keeping of vaccinations (n = 33, 75.0%), and legal and regulatory issues related to vaccinations (n = 32, 69.6%) were the least adequately covered topics. Most common methods used in teaching were didactic lectures (n = 74, 92.5%). Overall, 53 of 87 respondents (60.9%) responded that their college does not currently teach "vaccination administration". Lack of resources, attitudes of other health professionals and not prioritizing vaccination were considered as barriers for implementing vaccination administration., Conclusion: Most pharmacy colleges in the ME cover vaccination-related topics in undergraduate curricula, yet they underemphasize vaccination administration and lack experiential learning methods. Implementing vaccination administration education requires addressing barriers related to the outer and inner settings, and planning, with stakeholder engagement., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2024 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious disease that can be treated with antivirals in addition to other antimicrobials in cases of secondary or concomitant infections. This creates potential for antimicrobials misuse, which increases antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Pharmacists are known to undertake prominent roles in combatting AMR., Aim: The aim of this review was to characterize pharmacist-driven interventions that have been performed in patients with COVID-19 globally and describe their impact on antimicrobial use., Method: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institutes manual framework for scoping reviews in our study. Studies that reported antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions performed by pharmacists in COVID-19 patients were included. Articles that did not report outcomes or did not mention pharmacists in the intervention were excluded. Restrictions included English-only articles from inception date until June 2022. Articles were searched from four databases., Results: Eleven publications were included in the review. The most common AMS intervention was pharmacist-driven interventions reported in 63.2% of all studies, followed by guideline development and application (26.3%), and medication supply coordination (10.5%), respectively. The outcomes of the interventions were difficult to compare but showed a reduction in antimicrobial use and prevention of adverse drug reactions with a relatively high acceptance rate from physicians., Conclusion: Pharmacists played an important role in performing AMS-related interventions in COVID-19 patients and helped in the fight against the worsening of AMR during the pandemic. The impact of pharmacist-driven AMS interventions in patients with COVID-19 seemed to be positive and improved outcomes related to antimicrobial use., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: We intended to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of colistin versus tigecycline as monotherapy or combination therapy against multi-drug resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) pathogens. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and in the grey literature (i.e., ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar) up to May 2021. Outcomes were clinical response, mortality, infection recurrence, and renal and hepatic toxicity. We pooled odd ratios (OR) using heterogeneity-guided random or fixed models at a statistical significance of p < 0.05. Results: Fourteen observational studies involving 1163 MDR/XDR pathogens, receiving tigecycline versus colistin monotherapy or combination, were included. Base-case analyses revealed insignificant differences in the clinical response, reinfection, and hepatic impairment. The 30-day mortality was significantly relatively reduced with tigecycline monotherapy (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.16−0.75, p = 0.007). The colistin monotherapy significantly relatively reduced in-hospital mortality (OR = 2.27, 95%CI 1.24−4.16, p = 0.008). Renal impairment rates were lower with tigecycline monotherapy or in combination, and were lower with monotherapy versus colistin-tigecycline combination. Low-risk of bias and moderate/high evidence quality were associated with all studies. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that there were no statistically significant differences in main efficacy outcomes between colistin and tigecycline monotherapies or combinations against MDR/XDR infections, except for lower rates of 30-day mortality with tigecycline and in-hospital mortality with colistin. Tigecycline was associated with favourable renal toxicity outcomes.

Background: Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) play a big role in minimizing antimicrobial resistance. Pharmacists are essential members of the health care team and in order for them to fulfill roles on ASP teams and become antimicrobial stewards, they must be prepared adequately by pharmacy schools prior to entry into actual practice. Although programming has been implemented into entry-to-practice programs worldwide, little is known about how students interpret antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) data and arrive at clinical decisions. We aimed to explore students' cognitive processes and determine how they formulate therapeutic decisions when presented with AMS cases., Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted using a case study approach, in which a sample (n=20) of pharmacy students was recruited to interpret AMS cases. Semi-structured 1-on-1 interviews were arranged with each participant. A think-aloud procedure with verbal protocol analysis was adopted to determine students' decision-making processes. Thematic analysis was used to interpret themes from the interview data., Results: Two themes were interpreted from the data: students' focus and students' approach to case interpretation. Students' focus relates to external factors students consider when interpreting AMS case data and use to make and justify therapeutic decisions including patient-centered factors, drug-related factors, AMS interventions, and pharmacist's role. Students' clinical reasoning describes the approach that students use to interpret the data and the decision-making processes they employ to arrive at a clinical decision including a systematic approach versus non-systematic approach., Conclusions: Students vary in their focus and the cognitive strategies used to interpret AMS cases. Findings support the notion that clinical reasoning and decision-making should be explicitly taught in pharmacy curricula, in order to help students become aware of their own cognitive processes and decision-making abilities., (© 2022. The Author(s).)