Reflective practice and its implications for pharmacy education

Pharmacy students require critical-thinking and problem-solving skills to integrate theory learned in the classroom with the complexities of practice, yet many pharmacy students fall short of acquiring these skills.1-2 Reflective practice activities encourage learning from the student's own experiences and those of others, and offer a possible solution for the integration of knowledge-based curricula with the ambiguities of practice, as well as enhance communication and collaboration within a multidisciplinary team. Although reflective practices have been embraced elsewhere in health professions education, their strengths and shortcomings need to be considered when implementing such practices into pharmacy curricula. This review provides an overview of the evolution of theories related to reflective practice, critically examines the use of reflective tools (such as portfolios and blogs), and discusses the implications of implementing reflective practices in pharmacy education

A retrospective study on students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the reflective ability clinical assessment

© 2016, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. All rights reserved. Objective. To evaluate student and teacher perceptions of the utility of the Reflective Ability Clinical Assessment (RACA) in an undergraduate pharmacy curriculum at an Australian university. Methods. A mixed-method study comprising the administration of a 7-item student survey on a 6-point Likert-type scale and a 45-minute focus group/phone interview with teachers. Results. Student (n=199) and teaching staff respondents (n=3) provided their perceptions of the implementation of the new educational tool. Student responses showed significant positive correlations between self-directed learning, counseling skills, relevance to future practice, and performance in an oral examination. Seven key themes emerged from the teacher interviews. Conclusion. The study revealed both students and teachers perceive the RACA as an effective educational tool that may enhance skill development for future clinical practice

Education on Correct Inhaler Technique in Pharmacy Schools: Barriers and Needs

Purpose: To investigate the effectiveness of a standard educational module on pharmacy students’ inhaler technique demonstration skills.Methods: This investigational study was conducted during the Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics tutorial classes in 2011. All fifth-year students were given placebo inhaler devices and information leaflets explaining the use of these devices. Students were then shown, by demonstration, the correct technique for each of the inhalers. All the students were assessed on the use of each of the inhalers two weeks following the tutorial. A validated questionnaire regarding the students’ barriers to demonstrate the correct inhaler technique was completed by all the students. The inhaler techniques  emonstratedwere Accuhaler (ACC), Turbuhaler (TH) and metered-dose inhaler (MDI).Results: Students scored significantly better with ACC with a score of 4.38 ± 1.81 (out of 9.00) than with TH (3.96 ± 1.75 out of 9.00); p = 0.004, and MDI (2.69 ± 1.76 out of 8.00); p < 0.001, based on Friedman test 2 weeks following training. The majority of students (78 %) believed that lack of practice with the devices was the primary barrier to correct inhaler use.Conclusion: Standard educational training may not be the most appropriate method of teaching students the correct use of inhalers. Clearly, there is a practice element missing which needs to be addressed in a feasible way.Keywords: Inhaler technique, Pharmacy education, Hands-on training, Training barrie

Relationship between Peak Inspiratory Flow and Patient and Disease Characteristics in Individuals with COPD-A Systematic Scoping Review

Optimal delivery of medication via dry powder inhalers, the most commonly prescribed inhaler type, is dependent on a patient achieving a minimum level of inspiratory flow during inhalation. However, measurement of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) against the simulated resistance of a dry powder inhaler is not frequently performed in clinical practice due to time or equipment limitations. Therefore, defining which patient characteristics are associated with lower PIF is critically important to help clinicians optimize their inhaler choice through a more personalized approach to prescribing. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically evaluate patient and disease characteristics determining PIF in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases were systematically searched for relevant studies on PIF in patients with COPD published in English between January 2000 and May 2021. The quality of evidence was assessed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation checklist. Of 3382 citations retrieved, 35 publications were included in the review (nine scored as high quality, 13 as moderate, nine as low, and four as very low). Factors correlating with PIF in >70% of papers included both patient characteristics (lower PIF correlated with increased age, female gender, shorter height, decreased handgrip and inspiratory muscle strength, and certain comorbidities) and disease characteristics (lower PIF correlated with markers of lung hyperinflation, lower peak expiratory flow [PEF] and increased disease severity). Other factors correlating with adequate/optimal or improved PIF included education/counseling and exercise/inspiratory muscle training; impaired physical function and errors in inhalation technique/non-adherence were associated with low/suboptimal PIF. In conclusion, clinicians should measure PIF against the simulated resistance of a particular device wherever possible. However, as this often cannot be done due to lack of resources or time, the patient and disease characteristics that influence PIF, as identified in this review, can help clinicians to choose the most appropriate inhaler type for their patients

Seasonal patterns of oral antihistamine and intranasal corticosteroid purchases from Australian community pharmacies : a retrospective observational study

Acknowledgments The abstract of this paper was presented at the Respiratory Effectiveness Group 2016 Annual Summit as a poster presentation with interim findings. The poster’s abstract was published in “Poster Abstracts” in The Journal of Thoracic Disease (Vol. 8, Supplement 5, 5 July 2016). http://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/8504.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Peak Inspiratory Flow and Spirometry Measures in COPD Patients : The POROS Study

This abstract is funded by: AstraZeneca Presented at poster discussion session: B102. CLINICAL TRIALS AND STUDIES IN COPD Monday 21st May 2018.Peer reviewedPostprin

Management of allergic rhinitis symptoms in the pharmacy Pocket guide 2022

Allergic rhinitis (AR) management requires a coordinated effort from healthcare providers and patients. Pharmacists are key members of these integrated care pathways resolving medication-related problems, optimizing regimens, improving adherence and recommending therapies while establishing liaisons between patients and physicians.Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) first published a reference document on the pharmacist's role in allergic rhinitis management in 2004. Several guidelines were developed over the past 20 years improving the care of allergic rhinitis patients through an evidence-based, integrated care approach.This ARIA/EAACI/FIP Position Paper is based on the latest ARIA in the Pharmacy guidelines and provides: (a) a structured approach to pharmacists identifying people with AR and/or allergic conjunctivitis as well as those at risk of poor disease control; (b) an evidence-based clinical decision support tool for optimising the management of allergic rhinitis in the community pharmacy; and (c) a framework of referral to the physician.This document is not intended to be a mandatory standard of care but is provided as a basis for pharmacists and their staff to develop relevant local standards of care for their patients, within their local practice environment. Pharmacy care varies between countries, and the guide should be adapted to the local situation.© 2022 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Evaluation of inhaler technique and achievement and maintenance of mastery of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax® compared with budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler® in adult patients with asthma: the Easy Low Instruction Over Time (ELIOT) study

Background: Incorrect inhaler technique is a common cause of poor asthma control. This two-phase pragmatic study evaluated inhaler technique mastery and maintenance of mastery with DuoResp® (budesonide-formoterol [BF]) Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® (BF) Turbuhaler® in patients with asthma who were receiving inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists. Methods: In the initial cross-sectional phase, patients were randomized to a 6-step training protocol with empty Spiromax and Turbuhaler devices. Patients initially demonstrating ≥1 error with their current device, and then achieving mastery with both Spiromax and Turbuhaler (absence of healthcare professional [HCP]-observed errors), were eligible for the longitudinal phase. In the longitudinal phase, patients were randomized to BF Spiromax or BF Turbuhaler. Co-primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving device mastery after three training steps and maintaining device mastery (defined as the absence of HCP-observed errors after 12 weeks of use). Secondary endpoints included device preference, handling error frequency, asthma control, and safety. Exploratory endpoints included assessment of device mastery by an independent external expert reviewing video recordings of a subset of patients. Results: Four hundred ninety-three patients participated in the cross-sectional phase, and 395 patients in the longitudinal phase. In the cross-sectional phase, more patients achieved device mastery after three training steps with Spiromax (94%) versus Turbuhaler (87%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05–6.95], p < 0.001). Longitudinal phase data indicated that the odds of maintaining inhaler mastery at 12 weeks were not statistically significantly different (OR 1.26 [95% CI 0.80–1.98], p = 0.316). Asthma control improved in both groups with no significant difference between groups (OR 0.11 [95% CI -0.09–0.30]). An exploratory analysis indicated that the odds of maintaining independent expert-verified device mastery were significantly higher for patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler (OR 2.11 [95% CI 1.25–3.54]). Conclusions: In the cross-sectional phase, a significantly greater proportion of patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler achieved device mastery; in the longitudinal phase, the proportion of patients maintaining device mastery with Spiromax versus Turbuhaler was similar. An exploratory independent expert-verified analysis found Spiromax was associated with higher levels of device mastery after 12 weeks. Asthma control was improved by treatment with both BF Spiromax and BF Turbuhaler