Simon R J Maxwell1, Jamie J Coleman2, Lynne Bollington3, Celia Taylor4, David J Webb5. 1. Clinical Pharmacology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Medical Education Centre, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, EH3 2XU, UK. 2. School of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences (CMDS), Medical School Building, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. 3. British Pharmacological Society, 16 Angel Gate, City Road, London, EC1V 2PT, UK. 4. Department of Health Sciences, University of Warwick Medical School, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. 5. Clinical Pharmacology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Queen's Medical Research Institute, 47 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4TJ, UK.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Fiona Reid; Ailsa Power; Derek Stewart; Anne Watson; Leon Zlotos; Derna Campbell; Trudi McIntosh; Simon Maxwell Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm Date: 2017-01-06
Authors: Cristín Ryan; Sarah Ross; Peter Davey; Eilidh M Duncan; Jill J Francis; Shona Fielding; Marie Johnston; Jean Ker; Amanda Jane Lee; Mary Joan MacLeod; Simon Maxwell; Gerard A McKay; James S McLay; David J Webb; Christine Bond Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David J Brinkman; Jelle Tichelaar; Sanne Graaf; René H J Otten; Milan C Richir; Michiel A van Agtmael Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: David J Brinkman; Jelle Tichelaar; Lidwine B Mokkink; Thierry Christiaens; Robert Likic; Romaldas Maciulaitis; Joao Costa; Emilio J Sanz; Simon R Maxwell; Milan C Richir; Michiel A van Agtmael Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Anne Holbrook; J Tiger Liu; Michael Rieder; Michelle Gibson; Mitchell Levine; Gary Foster; Dan Perri; Simon Maxwell Journal: Can Med Educ J Date: 2019-03-13