eDrug: a dynamic interactive electronic drug formulary for medical students

Abstract

Aims: Prescribing drugs is a key responsibility of a doctor and requires a solid grounding in the relevant scientific disciplines of pharmacology and therapeutics (PT). The move away from basic science disciplines towards a more system-based and integrated undergraduate curriculum has created difficulties in the delivery of PT teaching in some medical schools. We aimed to develop a web-based strategy to overcome these problems and improve the PT learning experience.

Methods: We designed and introduced 'eDrug', a dynamic interactive web-based student formulary, as an aid to teaching and learning of PT throughout a 5-year integrated medical curriculum in a UK medical school of 1300 students. This was followed by a prospective observational study of student-reported views about its impact on their PT learning experience.

Results: eDrug was rated highly by students and staff, with the main benefits being increased visibility of PT in the curriculum, clear identification of core drugs, regular sourcing of drug information via direct links to accredited sources including the British National Formulary, prioritization of learning, immediate access and responsiveness. It has also served as a focus of discussion concerning core PT learning objectives amongst staff and students.

Conclusions: Web-based delivery of PT learning objectives actively supports learning within an integrated curriculum.

Figure 1

eDrug front page and drug review, as seen by users

Figure 2

Data illustrate the extensive use being made of eDrug by students in years 1 and 5 of the Edinburgh MBChB curriculum during May 2005, following introduction of this learning aid in April 2005. Year 1 averaged 300 hits every day, including weekends; year 5 averaged 114 hits; both classes have approximately 240 undergraduates. eDrug was demonstrated to the whole of first year, but this was not feasible for fifth-year students, who were on clinical rotations, and they were briefed by e-mail

Figure 3

Upper panel shows the mean score (as percentage of maximum achievable = 100) obtained from on-line questionnaires completed during May 2005. Lower panel shows the pooled values for years 1–5 as a box and whisker graph (median, range and quartiles are shown). The score for each question was high, with a tendency for year 1 to score slightly higher than year 5, who were near to finals. The responses were normalized to allow for the lower response rate from years 2–5. The response rates for individual years (each ∼ 240 students) were: Year 1 (63%) (□), year 2 (43%) (), year 3 (50%) (), year 4 (), year 5 (46%) (▪)