An evaluation of pharmacology curricula in Australian science and health-related degree programs

BMC Medical Education

James Ziogas⁴  Ian Musgrave³  Joanne Hart⁹  Lynette Fernandes⁸  Elizabeth Davis²  Anna-Marie Babey⁷  Shane Bullock⁶  Tina Hinton¹  Hilary Lloyd⁵ 

[1] School of Medical Sciences (Pharmacology), The University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia;Department of Pharmacology, Monash University, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia;Discipline of Pharmacology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia;Department of Pharmacology, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia;The University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia;Gippsland Medical School, Monash University, Northways Road, Churchill VIC 3842, Australia;School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia;School of Medicine and Pharmacology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009, Australia;School of Medical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora VIC 3083, Australia

关键词: Pharmacy;    Nursing;    Medicine;    Science;    Survey;    Education;    Curriculum;    Pharmacology;   

Others  :  1138516
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-153

 received in 2013-03-04, accepted in 2013-11-12,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Pharmacology is a biomedical discipline taught in basic science and professional degree programs. In order to provide information that would facilitate pharmacology curricula to be refined and developed, and approaches to teaching to be updated, a national survey was undertaken in Australia that investigated pharmacology course content, teaching and summative assessment methods.

Methods

Twenty-two institutions participated in a purpose-built online questionnaire, which enabled an evaluation of 147 courses taught in 10 different degrees. To enable comparison, degrees were grouped into four major degree programs, namely science, pharmacy, medicine and nursing. The pharmacology content was then classified into 16 lecture themes, with 2-21 lecture topics identified per theme. The resultant data were analysed for similarities and differences in pharmacology curricula across the degree programs.

Results

While all lecture themes were taught across degree programs, curriculum content differed with respect to the breadth and hours of coverage. Overall, lecture themes were taught most broadly in medicine and with greatest coverage in pharmacy. Reflecting a more traditional approach, lectures were a dominant teaching method (at least 90% of courses). Sixty-three percent of science courses provided practical classes but such sessions occurred much less frequently in other degree programs, while tutorials were much more common in pharmacy degree programs (70%). Notably, problem-based learning was common across medical programs. Considerable diversity was found in the types of summative assessment tasks employed. In science courses the most common form of in-semester assessment was practical reports, whereas in other programs pen-and-paper quizzes predominated. End-of-semester assessment contributed 50-80% to overall assessment across degree programs.

Conclusion

The similarity in lecture themes taught across the four different degree programs shows that common knowledge- and competency-based learning outcomes can be defined for pharmacology. The authors contend that it is the differences in breadth and coverage of material for each lecture theme, and the differing teaching modes and assessment that characterise particular degree programs. Adoption of pharmacology knowledge-based learning outcomes that could be tailored to suit individual degree programs would better facilitate the sharing of expertise and teaching practice than the current model where pharmacology curricula are degree-specific.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Lloyd et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bullock S, Manias E: The educational preparation of undergraduate nursing students in pharmacology: a survey of lecturers’ perceptions and experiences. J Adv Nurs 2002, 40:7-16.
• [2]Lawson M, Bearman M: Medical education in Australia: what makes for success? Summary report: surveys, focus groups and interviews. Australia: Final report on PRN9183 & PRN9255 for the Department of Education, Science and Training; 2007.
• [3]Tobaiqy M, McLay J, Ross S: Foundation year 1 doctors and clinical pharmacology and therapeutics teaching. A retrospective view in light of experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007, 64:363-372.
• [4]Heaton A, Webb DJ, Maxwell SRJ: Undergraduate preparation for prescribing: the views of 2413 UK medical students and recent graduates. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008, 66:128-134.
• [5]Dornan T, Ashcroft D, Heathfield H, Lewis P, Miles J, Tully M, Wass V: An in depth investigation into causes of prescribing errors by foundation trainees in relation to their medical education – Equip study. Manchester: Final report; 2009.
• [6]Bull S, Mattick K: What biomedical science should be included in undergraduate medical courses and how is this decided? Med Teach 2010, 32:360-367.
• [7]Pharmaceuticals Education Council: Report on Skills Gaps in the Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Industries. Phases 1- 3. 2007. http://www.pharmacouncil.com.au/resources.php webcite: accessed 19th August, 2012
• [8]Walley T, Bligh J, Orme M, Breckenridge A: Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics in undergraduate medical education in the UK: the future. Br J Clin Pharm 1994, 37:137-143.
• [9]Nierenberg DW: A core curriculum for medical students in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. The Council for Medical Education in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990, 48:606-610.
• [10]Dewhurst DG, Page CP: A survey of the content of BSc courses in pharmacology in UK universities - is it time for a core curriculum? Trends Pharmacol Sci 1998, 19:262-265.
• [11]Markham T, Jones SJ, Hughes I, Sutcliffe M: Survey methods of teaching and learning in undergraduate pharmacology within UK higher education. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1998, 19:257-262.
• [12]Guilbert J-J: Coveritis: an acute and chronic faculty disease. Educacao Medica 1995, 6:2-7.
• [13]Achike FI, Ogle CW: Information overload in the teaching of pharmacology. J Clin Pharmacol 2000, 40:177-183.
• [14]Eisenberg R, Rosenfeld G (Eds): In Knowledge Objectives in Medical Pharmacology. 5th edition. 2008. [Association for Medical School Pharmacology Chairs] Updated version: http://www.amspc.org/pharmacology-resources/ webcite
• [15]Association of American Medical Colleges: Contemporary issues in medicine education in safe and effective prescribing practices. Washington DC: Medical School Objectives Project; 2008.
• [16]General Medical Council: Tomorrow’s doctors – outcomes and standards for undergraduate medical education. United Kingdom; 2009. http://www.gmc-uk.org/TomorrowsDoctors_2009.pdf_39260971.pdf webcite
• [17]Jaillon P: Teaching basic and clinical pharmacology to medical students: a 2006 survey in French Schools of medicine. Therapie 2006, 61:439-446.
• [18]O’Shaughnessy L, Haq I, Maxwell S, Llewelyn M: Teaching of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics in UK medical schools: current status in 2009. Br J Clin Pharm 2010, 70:143-148.
• [19]Achike FI: The temporal and challenging faces of integration in medical education: the fate of pharmacology. Indian J Pharmacol 2011, 43:227-231.
• [20]Australian Qualifications Framework: First Edition July 2011. http://www.aqf.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/AQF-1st-Edition-July-2011.pdf webcite
• [21]Stupans I: Evidence-based learning design: The case of pharmacology teaching in pharmacy programs. University of New England: University Learning and Teaching Futures Colloquium; 2010. http://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/52549/ULT-Futures-2010-Stupans.pdf webcite
• [22]Black JW: TiPS on identity. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1996, 17:121.
• [23]Csaky TZ: Is there an identity crisis in medical school pharmacology? J Med Educ 1976, 51:935-937.
• [24]Vallance P, Smart TG: The future of pharmacology. Brit J Pharmacol 2006, 147:S304-S307.