Impact of a Digital Tool on Pharmacy Students' Ability to Perform Medication Reviews: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Digital Medication Review Tools (DMRTs) are increasingly important in pharmacy practice. To ensure that young pharmacists are sufficiently competent to perform medication reviews after graduation, the introduction of DMRTs teaching in academic education is necessary. The aim of our study was to demonstrate the effect of DMRTs use on pharmacy students' performance when conducting a medication review (MR) in a randomized controlled pre-post design. Forty-one pharmacy students were asked to complete a MR within 60 min, followed by a 10-min consultation with (intervention group) and without a DMRT (control group). The MR performance was subdivided into four categories: communication skills, subjective and objective patient data, assessment, and plan. Performance was assessed using objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) and analytical checklists. With the use of DMRTs, the overall performance was improved by 17.0% compared to the control group (p < 0.01). Improvement through DMRTs was seen in the subcategories "Assessment" and "Plan". Furthermore, pharmacy students liked using DMRTs and felt more confident overall. Our study results demonstrate that DMRTs improve the performance of MRs, hence DMRTs should become an integral part of pharmacy curriculum. Consequently, digitally enabled pharmacists using DMRTs will be better prepared for their professional careers in pharmacy practice.

Keywords: digital health; digital tool; eHealth; medication review; medication safety; pharmaceutical services; pharmacy education.

Figure A1

Subjective and objective patient data—Patient 1 in the first OSCE.

Figure A2

Medication schedule—Patient 1 in the first OSCE.

Figure A3

Subjective and objective patient data—Patient 2 in the first OSCE.

Figure A4

Medication schedule—Patient 2 in the first OSCE.

Figure A5

Subjective and objective patient data—Patient 3 in the first OSCE.

Figure A6

Medication schedule—Patient 3 in the first OSCE.

Figure A7

Subjective and objective patient data—Patient 4 in the first OSCE.

Figure A8

Medication schedule—Patient 4 in the first OSCE.

Figure A9

Subjective and objective patient data—Patient 5 in the second OSCE.

Figure A10

Medication schedule—Patient 5 in the second OSCE.

Figure A11

Subjective and objective patient data—Patient 6 in the second OSCE.

Figure A12

Medication schedule—Patient 6 in the second OSCE.

Figure A13

Subjective and objective patient data—Patient 7 in the second OSCE.

Figure A14

Medication schedule—Patient 7 in the second OSCE.

Figure A15

Subjective and objective patient data—Patient 8 in the second OSCE.

Figure A16

Medication schedule—Patient 8 in the second OSCE.

Figure A17

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 1 in the first OSCE.

Figure A17

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 1 in the first OSCE.

Figure A18

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 2 in the first OSCE.

Figure A18

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 2 in the first OSCE.

Figure A19

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 3 in the first OSCE.

Figure A19

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 3 in the first OSCE.

Figure A20

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 4 in the first OSCE.

Figure A20

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 4 in the first OSCE.

Figure A21

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 5 in the second OSCE.

Figure A21

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 5 in the second OSCE.

Figure A22

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 6 in the second OSCE.

Figure A22

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 6 in the second OSCE.

Figure A23

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 7 in the second OSCE.

Figure A23

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 7 in the second OSCE.

Figure A24

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 8 in the second OSCE.

Figure A24

Corresponding OSCE checklist for Patient 8 in the second OSCE.

Figure 1

Study procedure and time-schedule. OSCE = objective structured clinical examination.

Figure 2

Overall performance in the first and second OSCE measured by an analytic checklist. Horizontal line = median; (*) = outlier.

Figure 3

Performance development for the control and the intervention groups between the first and the second OSCE. Performance development was generated by subtracting participants’ performance on the second OSCE with their performance on the first OSCE. Horizontal line = median.

Figure 4

Performance of the first and second OSCE in the subcategory “Assessment”. Horizontal line = median; (*) = outlier.

Figure 5

Performance of the first and second OSCE in the subcategory “Plan”. Horizontal line = median; (*) = outlier.

Figure 6

Display of the results of the questionnaire in a forest plot. The box represents the arithmetic mean. The horizontal lines to the left and right of the box indicate the 95% confidence interval. Consensus on a statement is reached when the confidence interval does not intersect the vertical line on 3 of the X-axis of the forest plot. While consensus was reached on all statements for the intervention group, no consensus was reached on statements 2, 3, 5, and 6 for the control group.