3.8 Article

Establishing consensus for general practice pharmacist education: A Delphi study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cptl.2019.10.010

关键词

Delphi process; Postgraduate training; General practice pharmacist; Pharmacist education

资金

  1. Australian Government Research and Training Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: An evolving area of pharmacist professional practice is performing as team members in general practice teams. To date, there is a paucity of literature to guide schools and colleges of pharmacy regarding the educational needs of pharmacists training for this area of practice. Methods: This study employed a three-round e-Delphi method with the aim of establishing a consensus position on educational needs of pharmacists intending to work in the general practice setting. Educators from all Australian universities with a pharmacy school were invited to participate as part of the expert panel. Delphi panellists completed two e-survey rounds. A panel videoconference was then completed with results of the discussion confirmed in a final third e-survey. This study defined a proportion of experts rating agree or strongly agree at >= 75% to determine consensus and disagree or strongly disagree at >= 75% to determine non-consensus. Results: Ten of the 18 invited panellists agreed to participate in the study and completed both survey rounds; nine panellists completed the third-round survey. Twenty-six general practice pharmacist activities were identified as educational needs. Seventeen general practice pharmacist activities required no additional training. Five general practice pharmacist activities did not reach consensus. Conclusions: This study is one of the first investigations of educational needs of pharmacists wishing to practice in the general practice setting. The panel differentiated between activities that could be performed by less experienced pharmacists operating at a general level and those that would require further training.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据