Search

Objectives: (i) To provide a preliminary indication of the performance of pharmacy undergraduate students and pre-registration pharmacy trainees in the Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA). (ii) To determine the feasibility of administering and delivering the PSA in schools of pharmacy. (iii) To examine the potential relevance of the PSA and associated training materials to pharmacy education. (iv) To assess the attitudes of the cohort towards the PSA and their readiness to prescribe., Methods: Four schools of pharmacy in England recruited final year undergraduate pharmacy students and pre-registration pharmacy trainees undertaking training with both hospital and community pharmacy employers in their locality to undertake the PSA. Performance data and feedback from candidates were obtained., Key Findings: Pre-registration pharmacy trainees in community (n = 27) and hospital (n = 209) settings mean average scores were 86.3% and 85.3%, respectively. There was a significant performance differential between undergraduate pharmacy students (n = 397) and those in pre-registration training, with the mean average score for undergraduate students being 73.0% (t test P < 0.05). Candidates felt their current course did prepare them for the PSA, some highlighted that additional curriculum content would be needed should this become a compulsory high-stakes assessment for pharmacy trainees. The majority of candidates felt that this assessment was useful and applicable to their training., Conclusions: The PSA process and associated learning tools could be introduced to pre-registration pharmacy education to support trainees in their development towards future prescribing roles., (© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Harmonizing clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education in Europe is necessary to ensure that the prescribing competency of future doctors is of a uniform high standard. As there are currently no uniform requirements, our aim was to achieve consensus on key learning outcomes for undergraduate CPT education in Europe. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of three questionnaire rounds and a panel meeting. A total of 129 experts from 27 European countries were asked to rate 307 learning outcomes. In all, 92 experts (71%) completed all three questionnaire rounds, and 33 experts (26%) attended the meeting. 232 learning outcomes from the original list, 15 newly suggested and 5 rephrased outcomes were included. These 252 learning outcomes should be included in undergraduate CPT curricula to ensure that European graduates are able to prescribe safely and effectively. We provide a blueprint of a European core curriculum describing when and how the learning outcomes might be acquired., (© 2017 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: Prescribing is a complex task requiring considerable knowledge and skills. The Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA) was developed by the British Pharmacological Society and the United Kingdom (UK) Medical Schools Council. Between February and June 2014, over 7000 final year medical students undertook the PSA, with an overall pass rate of 94%. Independent prescribing for suitably trained pharmacists was introduced in the UK in 2006. To date there has been little focus on any objective measures of prescribing safety., Objective: To determine the PSA performance of a pilot group of pharmacist prescribers in Scotland relative to medical students and to test the feasibility and acceptability of running the PSA., Methods: A group of 59 pharmacist prescribers took part in ten events. The PSA consisted of 30 questions to be completed over 60 min. All questions had been used in the 2014 assessments for final year medical students. The PSA was undertaken online under invigilated conditions, mirroring the medical student assessment. One month later, participants were invited to complete an online evaluation questionnaire., Results: The mean overall PSA scores (±SD) were 87.5% ± 8.7 (range 52-98) compared to a 88.5% for medical students. Based on an Angoff passmark of 76.0%, 53 pharmacists (89.8%) passed compared to an overall pass rate in PSA 2014 of 94%. Pharmacists performed equivalently to medical students in all assessment areas, with a slightly lower performance in the prescribing, drug monitoring and data interpretation questions offset by better performance in prescription review and adverse drug reactions. Feedback was positive in relation to appropriateness, relevance and level of difficulty of the PSA although several commented that they were practicing in very specific clinical areas., Conclusion: These pilot events have benchmarked the PSA performance of pharmacist prescribers with final year medical students, and feedback confirmed feasibility and acceptability., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Newly graduated doctors write a large proportion of prescriptions in UK hospitals but recent studies have shown that they frequently make prescribing errors. The prescribing safety assessment (PSA) has been developed as an assessment of competence in relation to prescribing and supervising the use of medicines. This report describes the delivery of the PSA to all UK final-year medical students in 2016 (PSA2016)., Methods: The PSA is a 2-hour online assessment comprising eight sections which cover various aspects of prescribing defined within the outcomes of undergraduate education identified by the UK General Medical Council. Students sat one of four PSA 'papers', which had been standard-set using a modified Angoff process., Results: A total of 7343 final-year medical students in all 31 UK medical schools sat the PSA. The overall pass rate was 95% with the pass rates for the individual papers ranging from 93 to 97%. The PSA was re-sat by 261 students who had failed and 80% of those candidates passed. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the four papers ranged from 0.74 to 0.77 (standard error of measurement 4.13-4.24%). There was a statistically significant variation in performance between medical school cohorts (F = 32.6, P < 0.001) and a strongly positive correlation in performance for individual schools between PSA2015 and PSA2016 (r = 0.79, 95% CI 0.61-0.90; P < 0.01)., Conclusions: PSA2016 demonstrated the feasibility of delivering a standardized national prescribing assessment online. The vast majority of UK final-year medical students were able to meet a prespecified standard of prescribing competence., (© 2017 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Prescribing is the most important tool used by physicians to cure illness, relieve symptoms and prevent future disease. It is also a complex intellectual task that requires formulation of an appropriate treatment regimen from the many thousands available, taking into account the infinite variation in the patients they encounter. Unfortunately, the selection of a medicine and dosage regimen is sometimes suboptimal, leading to poor patient outcomes (eg treatment failure, avoidable adverse reactions). This article will highlight some of the common prescribing errors and will develop a rational approach that includes making a diagnosis, estimating prognosis, establishing the goals of therapy, selecting the most appropriate treatment and monitoring the effects of the treatment., (© Royal College of Physicians 2016. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Study objectives were to investigate the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors amongst foundation doctors (i.e. junior doctors in their first (F1) or second (F2) year of post-graduate training), describe their knowledge and experience of prescribing errors, and explore their self-efficacy (i.e. confidence) in prescribing., Method: A three-part mixed-methods design was used, comprising: prospective observational study; semi-structured interviews and cross-sectional survey. All doctors prescribing in eight purposively selected hospitals in Scotland participated. All foundation doctors throughout Scotland participated in the survey. The number of prescribing errors per patient, doctor, ward and hospital, perceived causes of errors and a measure of doctors' self-efficacy were established., Results: 4710 patient charts and 44,726 prescribed medicines were reviewed. There were 3364 errors, affecting 1700 (36.1%) charts (overall error rate: 7.5%; F1:7.4%; F2:8.6%; consultants:6.3%). Higher error rates were associated with : teaching hospitals (p<0.001), surgical (p = <0.001) or mixed wards (0.008) rather thanmedical ward, higher patient turnover wards (p<0.001), a greater number of prescribed medicines (p<0.001) and the months December and June (p<0.001). One hundred errors were discussed in 40 interviews. Error causation was multi-factorial; work environment and team factors were particularly noted. Of 548 completed questionnaires (national response rate of 35.4%), 508 (92.7% of respondents) reported errors, most of which (328 (64.6%) did not reach the patient. Pressure from other staff, workload and interruptions were cited as the main causes of errors. Foundation year 2 doctors reported greater confidence than year 1 doctors in deciding the most appropriate medication regimen., Conclusions: Prescribing errors are frequent and of complex causation. Foundation doctors made more errors than other doctors, but undertook the majority of prescribing, making them a key target for intervention. Contributing causes included work environment, team, task, individual and patient factors. Further work is needed to develop and assess interventions that address these.

Junior doctors write the majority of hospital prescriptions but many indicate they feel underprepared to assume this responsibility and around 10% of prescriptions contain errors. Medical smartphone apps are now widely used in clinical practice and present an opportunity to provide support to inexperienced prescribers. This study assesses the contemporary range of smartphone apps with prescribing or related content. Six smartphone app stores were searched for apps aimed at the healthcare professional with drug, pharmacology or prescribing content. Three hundred and six apps were identified. 34% appeared to be for use within the clinical environment in order to aid prescribing, 14% out with the clinical setting and 51% of apps were deemed appropriate for both clinical and non-clinical use. Apps with drug reference material, such as textbooks, manuals or medical apps with drug information were the commonest apps found (51%), followed by apps offering drug or infusion rate dose calculation (26%). 68% of apps charged for download, with a mean price of £14.25 per app and a range of £0.62-101.90. A diverse range of pharmacology-themed apps are available and there is further potential for the development of contemporary apps to improve prescribing performance. Personalized app stores may help universities/healthcare organizations offer high quality apps to students to aid in pharmacology education. Users of prescribing apps must be aware of the lack of information regarding the medical expertise of app developers. This will enable them to make informed choices about the use of such apps in their clinical practice., (© 2013 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Aims: Prescribing errors are common and inadequate preparation of prescribers appears to contribute. A junior doctor-led prescribing tutorial programme has been developed for Edinburgh final year medical students to increase exposure to common prescribing tasks. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of these tutorials on students and tutors., Methods: One hundred and ninety-six tutorials were delivered to 183 students during 2010-2011. Each student completed a questionnaire after tutorial attendance which explored their previous prescribing experiences and the perceived benefits of tutorial attendance. Tutors completed a questionnaire which evaluated their teaching experiences and the impact on their prescribing practice. Student tutorial attendance was compared with end-of-year examination performance using linear regression analysis., Results: The students reported increased confidence in their prescribing knowledge and skills after attending tutorials. Students who attended more tutorials also tended to perform better in end-of-year examinations (Drug prescribing: r = 0.16, P = 0.015; Fluid prescribing: r = 0.18, P = 0.007). Tutors considered that participation enhanced their own prescribing knowledge and skills. Although they were occasionally unable to address student uncertainties, 80% of tutors reported frequently correcting misconceptions and deficits in student knowledge. Ninety-five percent of students expressed a preference for prescribing training delivered by junior doctors over more senior doctors., Conclusions: A 'near-peer' junior doctor-led approach to delivering prescribing training to medical students was highly valued by both students and tutors. Although junior doctors have relatively less clinical experience of prescribing, we believe that this can be addressed by training and academic supervision and is outweighed by the benefits of these tutorials., (© 2013 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Aims: The aim of the study was to explore and compare junior doctors' perceptions of their self-efficacy in prescribing, their prescribing errors and the possible causes of those errors., Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study was distributed to foundation doctors throughout Scotland, based on Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory and Human Error Theory (HET)., Results: Five hundred and forty-eight questionnaires were completed (35.0% of the national cohort). F1s estimated a higher daytime error rate [median 6.7 (IQR 2-12.4)] than F2s [4.0 IQR (0-10) (P = 0.002)], calculated based on the total number of medicines prescribed. The majority of self-reported errors (250, 49.2%) resulted from unintentional actions. Interruptions and pressure from other staff were commonly cited causes of errors. F1s were more likely to report insufficient prescribing skills as a potential cause of error than F2s (P = 0.002). The prescribers did not believe that the outcomes of their errors were serious. F2s reported higher self-efficacy scores than F1s in most aspects of prescribing (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Foundation doctors were aware of their prescribing errors, yet were confident in their prescribing skills and apparently complacent about the potential consequences of prescribing errors. Error causation is multi-factorial often due to environmental factors, but with lack of knowledge also contributing. Therefore interventions are needed at all levels, including environmental changes, improving knowledge, providing feedback and changing attitudes towards the role of prescribing as a major influence on patient outcome., (© 2013 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Purpose of Study: Initiatives to standardise hospital paper-based prescription charts are underway in various countries in an effort to reduce prescribing errors. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which prescribing error rates are influenced by prescription chart design and familiarity., Study Design: In this prospective, randomised, cross-over study, Foundation Year 1 doctors working in five Scottish National Health Service (NHS) Boards participated in study sessions during which they were asked to prescribe lists of medications for five fictional patients using a different design of paper prescription chart for each patient. Each doctor was timed completing each set of prescriptions, and each chart was subsequently assessed against a predefined list of possible errors. A mixed modelling approach using three levels of variables (design of and familiarity with a chart, prescribing speed and individual prescriber) was employed., Results: A total of 72 Foundation Year 1 doctors participated in 10 data-collection sessions. Differences in prescription chart design were associated with significant variations in the rates of prescribing error. The charts from NHS Highland and NHS Grampian produced significantly higher error rates than the other three charts. Participants who took longer to complete their prescriptions made significantly fewer errors, but familiarity with a chart did not predict error rate., Conclusions: This study has important implications for prescription chart design and prescribing education. The inverse relationship between the time taken to complete a prescribing task and the rate of error emphasises the importance of attention to detail and workload as factors in error causation. Further work is required to identify the characteristics of prescription charts that are protective against errors.

Background and Objective: Falls are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly. This study examined the frequency of hospital admission for falls or fractures, and the association with a recent change in the use of cardiovascular and psychotropic medications., Methods: We conducted a retrospective case-cohort study of 39,813 patients aged >65 years from 40 Scottish general practices. Data on current prescriptions, dates of drug changes (defined as increases in dose or starting new drugs), diagnoses and clinical measurements were extracted from primary care electronic records, linked to national hospital admissions data. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the association of change in prescribing of cardiovascular or psychotropic medication with admission to hospital for falls or fractures in the following 60 days., Results: A total of 838 patients (2.1 %) were admitted in the 1-year study period. Following adjustment for factors including age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, co-morbidity and current prescribing, changes in both cardiovascular and psychotropic medications were associated with subsequent admission for falls or fractures (odds ratio [OR] 1.54 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.17-2.03] and 1.68 [95 % CI 1.28-2.22], respectively). There was no evidence for a difference in the effect of change in medication for different cardiovascular drug types (p = 0.86), but there was evidence (p = 0.003) for variation in the association between change in different psychotropic medications and admission; the strongest associations were observed for changes in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants (OR 1.99 [95 % CI 1.29-3.08]), non-SSRI/tricyclic antidepressants (OR 4.39 [95 % CI 2.21-8.71]) and combination psychotropic medication (OR 3.05 [95 % CI 1.66-5.63])., Conclusions: Recent changes in psychotropic and cardiovascular medications are associated with a substantial increase in risk of hospital admission for falls and fractures. Caution should thus be taken when instigating prescribing changes in relation to these medicines, particularly in individuals already considered to be at high risk, such as those with multiple co-morbidities and the oldest old.

Prescribing of medicines is the key clinical activity in the working life of most doctors. In recent years, a broad consensus regarding the necessary competencies has been achieved. Each of these is a complex mix of knowledge, judgement and skills. Surveys of those on the threshold of their medical careers have revealed widespread lack of confidence in writing prescriptions. A valid and reliable assessment of prescribing competence, separate from an overall assessment of medical knowledge and skill, would have many benefits for clinical governance and patient safety, and would provide a measure of the success of training programmes in therapeutics. Delivering such an assessment presents many challenges, not least of which are the difficulty in identifying a surrogate marker for competent prescribing in clinical practice and the challenge of ensuring that competence assessed in a controlled environment predicts performance in clinical practice. This review makes the case for an on-line OSCE as the most valid form of assessment and sets out the requirements for its development, scope, composition and delivery. It describes an on-going attempt to develop a national assessment of prescribing skills towards the end of undergraduate medical training in the UK., (© 2011 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology © 2011 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Preparing medical students to prescribe is a major challenge of undergraduate education. They must develop an understanding of clinical pharmacology and acquire knowledge about drugs and therapeutics, as well as the skills to prescribe for individual patients in the face of multiple variables. The task of delivering the learning required to achieve these attributes relies upon limited numbers of teachers, who have increasingly busy clinical commitments. There is evidence that training is currently insufficient to meet the demands of the workplace. e-Learning provides an opportunity to improve the learning experience. The advantages for teachers are improved distribution of learning content, ease of update, standardization and tracking of learner activities. The advantages for learners are ease of access, greater interactivity and individual choice concerning the pace and mix of learning. Important disadvantages are the considerable resource required to develop e-Learning projects and difficulties in simulating some aspects of the real world prescribing experience. Pre-requisites for developing an e-Learning programme to support prescribing include academic expertise, institutional support, learning technology services and an effective virtual learning environment. e-Learning content might range from complex interactive learning sessions through to static web pages with links. It is now possible to simulate and provide feedback on prescribing decisions and this will improve with advances in virtual reality. Other content might include a student formulary, self-assessment exercises (e.g. calculations), a glossary and an on-line library. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of e-Learning but better research is required into its potential impact on prescribing., (© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology © 2012 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Prescribing is one of the commonest tasks expected of new doctors and is a complex process involving a mixture of knowledge, judgement and skills. Preparing graduates to be prescribers is one of the greatest challenges of modern undergraduate medical education and there is some evidence to suggest that training could be improved. The aims of this article are (i) to review some of the challenges of delivering effective prescribing education, (ii) to provide a clear statement of the learning outcomes in clinical pharmacology and prescribing that should be expected of all medical graduates and (iii) to describe a curriculum that might enable students to achieve these outcomes. We build on the previous curriculum recommendations of the British Pharmacological Society and take into account those of other key bodies, notably the General Medical Council. We have also reviewed relevant evidence from the literature and set our work in the context of recent trends in medical education. We divide our recommended learning objectives into four sections: principles of clinical pharmacology, essential drugs, essential therapeutic problems and prescribing skills. Although these will not necessarily be accepted universally we believe that they will help those who design and map undergraduate curricula to explore potential gaps and identify improvements., (© 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology © 2012 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: Prescribing errors are a major source of morbidity and mortality and represent a significant patient safety concern. Evidence suggests that trainee doctors are responsible for most prescribing errors. Understanding the factors that influence prescribing behavior may lead to effective interventions to reduce errors. Existing investigations of prescribing errors have been based on Human Error Theory but not on other relevant behavioral theories. The aim of this study was to apply a broad theory-based approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to investigate prescribing in the hospital context among a sample of trainee doctors., Method: Semistructured interviews, based on 12 theoretical domains, were conducted with 22 trainee doctors to explore views, opinions, and experiences of prescribing and prescribing errors. Content analysis was conducted, followed by applying relevance criteria and a novel stage of critical appraisal, to identify which theoretical domains could be targeted in interventions to improve prescribing., Results: Seven theoretical domains met the criteria of relevance: "social professional role and identity," "environmental context and resources," "social influences," "knowledge," "skills," "memory, attention, and decision making," and "behavioral regulation." From critical appraisal of the interview data, "beliefs about consequences" and "beliefs about capabilities" were also identified as potentially important domains. Interrelationships between domains were evident. Additionally, the data supported theoretical elaboration of the domain behavioral regulation., Conclusions: In this investigation of hospital-based prescribing, participants' attributions about causes of errors were used to identify domains that could be targeted in interventions to improve prescribing. In a departure from previous TDF practice, critical appraisal was used to identify additional domains that should also be targeted, despite participants' perceptions that they were not relevant to prescribing errors. These were beliefs about consequences and beliefs about capabilities. Specifically, in the light of the documented high error rate, beliefs that prescribing errors were not likely to have consequences for patients and that trainee doctors are capable of prescribing without error should also be targeted in an intervention. This study is the first to suggest critical appraisal for domain identification and to use interview data to propose theoretical elaborations and interrelationships between domains.

1. Poor prescribing is probably the most common cause of preventable medication errors in hospitals, and many of these events involve junior doctors who have recently graduated. Prescribing is a complex skill that depends on a sound knowledge of medicines, an understanding of the principles of clinical pharmacology, the ability to make judgements concerning risks and benefits, and ideally experience. It is not surprising that errors occur. 2. The challenge of being a prescriber is probably greater now than ever before. Medical education has changed radically in the last 20 years, reflecting concerns about an overburdened curriculum and lack of focus on social sciences. In the UK, these changes have resulted in less teaching in clinical pharmacology and practical prescribing as guaranteed features of undergraduate training and assessment. There has been growing concern, not least from students, that medical school training is not sufficient to prepare them for the pressures of becoming prescribers. Similar concerns are being expressed in other countries. While irrefutable evidence that these changes are related to medication errors identified in practice, there is circumstantial evidence that this is so. 3. Systems analysis of errors suggests that knowledge and training are relevant factors in causation and that focused education improves prescribing performance. We believe that there is already sufficient evidence to support a careful review of how students are trained to become prescribers and how these skills are fostered in the postgraduate years. We provide a list of guiding principles on which training might be based.

Here we discuss 15 recommendations for reducing the risks of medication errors: 1. Provision of sufficient undergraduate learning opportunities to make medical students safe prescribers. 2. Provision of opportunities for students to practise skills that help to reduce errors. 3. Education of students about common types of medication errors and how to avoid them. 4. Education of prescribers in taking accurate drug histories. 5. Assessment in medical schools of prescribing knowledge and skills and demonstration that newly qualified doctors are safe prescribers. 6. European harmonization of prescribing and safety recommendations and regulatory measures, with regular feedback about rational drug use. 7. Comprehensive assessment of elderly patients for declining function. 8. Exploration of low-dose regimens for elderly patients and preparation of special formulations as required. 9. Training for all health-care professionals in drug use, adverse effects, and medication errors in elderly people. 10. More involvement of pharmacists in clinical practice. 11. Introduction of integrated prescription forms and national implementation in individual countries. 12. Development of better monitoring systems for detecting medication errors, based on classification and analysis of spontaneous reports of previous reactions, and for investigating the possible role of medication errors when patients die. 13. Use of IT systems, when available, to provide methods of avoiding medication errors; standardization, proper evaluation, and certification of clinical information systems. 14. Nonjudgmental communication with patients about their concerns and elicitation of symptoms that they perceive to be adverse drug reactions. 15. Avoidance of defensive reactions if patients mention symptoms resulting from medication errors.

Purpose: Young doctors write prescriptions regularly from their first day of practice. We investigated final-semester students' perceptions of their training in relation to prescribing in two Croatian medical schools with different clinical pharmacology (CPT) teaching styles (Zagreb: problem-based and Rijeka: lecture-based course)., Methods: A total of 315 students (220 in Zagreb, 95 in Rijeka) underwent a 4-week-long course in CPT in the academic year 2006/2007. We compared the impact of different educational methods on student performance using an MCQ assessment. After the training, students completed a paper questionnaire on prescribing skills and knowledge of pharmacotherapy., Results: Students in Rijeka were significantly more satisfied with their traditional lecture-based course. Only 56% of Zagreb students and 54% of students from Rijeka felt confident about their prescription-writing skills. Only 8% of Zagreb and none of Rijeka students had written more than six prescriptions during their entire medical curriculum. There was no difference in the participants' levels of factual knowledge of rational pharmacotherapy., Conclusion: The style of learning about medicines did not affect students' factual knowledge. Only half of the student cohort felt confident about their ability to prescribe medicines, and few had practiced this skill during their medical training.

Aims: To gather opinions from UK medical students and recent graduates about their undergraduate training to prescribe and their confidence about meeting the relevant competencies identified by the General Medical Council (GMC)., Methods: We designed a web-based survey that was distributed to UK medical students and first year Foundation doctors (graduation years 2006-2008) via medical schools and postgraduate networks., Results: Analysis was restricted to 2413 responses from students graduating in 2006-2008 from the 25 UK medical schools (mean 96.5 per school) with a complete undergraduate curriculum. Distinct courses and assessments in 'clinical pharmacology & therapeutics (or equivalent)' were identified by 17% and 13%, respectively, with mode of learning described most commonly as 'opportunistic learning during clinical attachments' (41%). Only 38% felt 'confident' about prescription writing and only a minority (35%) had filled in a hospital prescription chart more than three times during training. The majority (74%) felt that the amount of teaching in this area was 'too little' or 'far too little', and most tended to disagree or disagreed that their assessment 'thoroughly tested knowledge and skills' (56%). When asked if they were confident that they would be able to achieve the prescribing competencies set out by the GMC, 42% disagreed or tended to disagree, whereas only 29% agreed or tended to agree., Conclusions: Many respondents clearly perceived a lack of learning opportunities and assessment related to the safe and effective use of drugs and had little confidence that they would meet the competencies identified by the GMC. There is an urgent need to review undergraduate training in this area.

Introduction: Adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting makes a vital contribution to pharmacovigilance, although the factors that influence the reporting rate remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the variation in the rate of reporting of suspected ADRs in different regions of Scotland was explained by differences in local prescribing practice and to quantify the extent of this influence., Methods: Population and primary care prescribing data were obtained for ten geographical areas based on the 15 administrative regions of the National Health Service in Scotland. All reports of suspected ADRs received from within Scotland for 2000 and 2001 were available from the regional monitoring centre (Committee on Safety of Medicines, Scotland). The primary analysis was based on 14 medications that appeared in the 'top ten' list for the frequency of reported ADRs for either year. Reporting rates for each area were expressed both in terms of population (reports per million people) and in terms of estimated exposure to those medications in primary care (reports per 1000 prescriptions). For each analysis, the Pearson correlation coefficient between reporting and prescribing data was calculated using SPSS software., Results: The 'top ten' medications accounted for 1715 of 2817 (60.9%, 95% CI 59.1, 62.7) ADR reports but only 2.2 million out of a total of 128 million primary care prescriptions (1.7%). Although there was a 3-fold geographical variation in the per-population ADR reporting rate, there was a close correlation between local reporting of ADRs and prescribing of the index medications (p = 0.66, p = 0.04, respectively). This implies that 44% of the observed variation in reporting rate can be attributed to variation in prescribing within the same population., Discussion: Spontaneous ADR reporting in Scotland over the 2 years studied was highly concentrated on a small number of medications that were under intensive surveillance. Although there was a 3-fold variation in reporting rates from individual geographic areas when corrected for the size of the population, primary care prescribing data showed nearly half of this local variation in reporting rates could be explained by differences in prescribing. This study highlights the importance of considering prescribing practice when interpreting spontaneous ADR reporting data.