International Journal of Healthcare Simulation

Background:

Whilst simulated patient (SP) inclusion in Medicine communication training is well established [1]^, a review of parallel literature for undergraduate Pharmacy programmes showed such research as extremely limited. The novel nature of a Pharmacy communication course (UK university) required a more detailed appraisal than existing module evaluations offered, so a study of student attitudes towards the course was undertaken. On commencement of a new MPharm programme in 2013, pharmacy and specialist clinical communication staff collaborated to develop an ambitious communication and professionalism course utilising a longitudinal 4-year complex simulation. The course is designed to meet the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) standards and address the need for pharmacists to, ‘understand the complexities of patients’ circumstances insofar as they are relevant to their medicines use or other behaviours relevant to personal health and wellbeing’ [2]. During the course, SPs present a series of fictitious patient/family journeys lasting years enabling students to contemplate the role of pharmacists in the provision of continuity of care. Students are encouraged to consider appropriate professional identity development and acquisition of clinical communication abilities, while also investigating the perspectives of family members and healthcare team members involved in cases. The feasibility of sustaining an effective longitudinal SP programme has been questioned [3], but the current four-year programme has been successfully maintained since the 2016–2017 academic year. Student cohorts range from 59–164 and participate in two simulation sessions per year. Logistical challenges, in addition to significant cost and time resources, have included retention of SPs to present consistent characters over years, integration of curricula revisions, and continuous updating of an extensive longitudinal simulation handbook. We aimed to explore students’ attitudes towards MPharm communication and professionalism training and to understand how its elements impact on student perceptions.

Methods:

In 2020, shortly before the coronavirus 2019 pandemic, 3 focus groups and one in-depth interview were conducted with undergraduate students from each year of the MPharm programme. A framework analysis method is being used to identify main and sub-themes from the data.

Results:

Preliminary thematic analysis findings indicate a student focus on fear of exposure, recognition of professional values, confidence building in the application of knowledge, and the importance of integration of teaching and placement activity.

Conclusion:

There is limited research in the use of SPs in undergraduate Pharmacy education with regards to how it helps them to develop in the domain of communication skills and professionalism and we hope our study will contribute to filling this gap.

References

1. Aspegren K. BEME Guide No. 2: Teaching and learning communication skills in medicine-a review with quality grading of articles. Med Teach. 1999 Jan 1;21(6):563–70. doi:10.1080/01421599978979

2. General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), Future pharmacists: standards for the initial education and training of pharmacists. London: GPhC; 2011.

3. Bokken L, Linssen T, Scherpbier A, van der Vleuten C, Rethans J-J. The longitudinal simulated patient program: evaluations by teachers and students and feasibility. Med Teach. 2009;31(7):613–620.