4.5 Article

Foundation year 1 doctors and clinical pharmacology and therapeutics teaching. A retrospective view in light of experience

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 64, 期 3, 页码 363-372

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2007.02925.x

关键词

adverse drug reactions; clinical pharmacology and therapeutics; foundation programme doctors; patient safety; prescribing; questionnaire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To determine whether, in retrospect, first year foundation (FY1) programme doctors believe that their undergraduate education in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (CPT) has prepared them to prescribe safely and rationally. Methods This was a prospective questionnaire survey. Ninety FY1 doctors, employed in the Aberdeen Teaching Hospitals, participated. Results Seventy-one percent of FY1 doctors completed the survey. Thirty percent of respondents rated their knowledge of CPT as poor or worse and only 8% as good; 74% reported having witnessed an adverse drug reaction (ADR) and 55% a drug-drug interaction, a number of which had resulted in patient morbidity or mortality. Many of these events were reported to have been avoidable or predictable with more extensive undergraduate and postgraduate training. Forty-two percent of respondents stated that they had not been taught enough about avoiding ADRs and 60% about avoiding drug-drug interactions during their undergraduate years. Over 75% of respondents reported high levels of confidence for the unsupervised use of warfarin, nonsteroidal analgesics and opiate analgesics. In retrospect, FY1 doctors would like more undergraduate teaching in prescribing for special patient groups, ADRs, drug interactions, together with CPT in their postgraduate teaching programme. Conclutions FY1 doctors believe that their undergraduate and postgraduate training in CPT is insufficient to prescribe safely and rationally. This study adds further weight to the call for an increase in the training of junior doctors in the rational and safe use of medicines.

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

4.5
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