Ieva Stupans

An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia

The need to develop An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia (the “APPF”) was identified during the 2010 review of the competency standards for Australian pharmacists. The Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework Steering Committee, a collaborative profession-wide committee comprised of representatives of ten pharmacy organisations, examined and adapted existing advanced practice frameworks, all of which were found to have been based on the Competency Development and Evaluation Group (CoDEG) Advanced and Consultant Level Framework (the “CoDEG Framework”) from the United Kingdom. Its competency standards were also found to align well with the Domains of the National Competency Standards Framework for Pharmacists in Australia (the “National Framework”). Adaptation of the CoDEG Framework created an APPF that is complementary to the National Framework, sufficiently flexible to customise for recognising advanced practice in any area of professional practice and has been approved by the boards/councils of all participating organisations. The primary purpose of the APPF is to assist the development of the profession to meet the changing health care needs of the community. However, it is also a valuable tool for assuring members of the public of the competence of an advanced practice pharmacist and the quality and safety of the services they deliver.

Knowledge, use and perceived relevance of a profession's Competency Standards; implications for Pharmacy Education

To determine the extent of use and perceived relevance of the National Competency Standards Framework for Pharmacists in Australia (NCS). Based on these findings, to suggest approaches for the enhancement of pharmacy education for the profession locally and globally.

Advanced practice: a survey of current perspectives of Australian pharmacists

An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia (the ‘APPF’) was published in October 2012. Further to the release of the APPF, the Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework Steering Committee planned to develop an advanced practice recognition model for Australian pharmacists.

A systematic review of pharmacy health coaching and an evaluation of patient outcomes

Background: Pharmacy health coaching is a nascent topic offering promise on several fronts. There is considerable benefit to discerning the contributions thus far and future directions of pharmacy health coaching and research of the topic. Objective: The objective of this review was to synthesize the available empirical evidence regarding pharmacy health coaching and to define it. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. CINHAL, EMBASE, PubMed, PsychINFO and SCOPUS) were searched (2000–2017) to identify sources related to pharmacy health coaching. Included articles were reviewed for their definition and outcomes of health coaching as well as recurring terms/themes pertaining to health coaching. Results: Ten papers met the eligibility criteria. The results of each empirical study as well as the definitions were used to identify the key outcomes associated with pharmacy health coaching and were then cross tabulated. The most commonly occurring outcome of health coaching was an improvement in a health outcome of a target population. An improvement in medication management/adherence and the relationship between health professionals was equally evident. Lastly, an improved attitude towards drug therapy was referred to more often than the cost‐effectiveness of health coaching. Conclusions: The evaluations enabled the formulation of a grounded definition of health coaching.

CPD Aligned to Competency Standards to Support Quality Practice

As medication experts, pharmacists are key members of the patient’s healthcare team. Pharmacists must maintain their competence to practice to remain responsive to the increasingly complex healthcare sector. This paper seeks to determine how competence training for pharmacists may enhance quality in their professional development. Results of two separately administered surveys (2012 and 2013) were compared to examine the reported continued professional development (CPD) practices of Australian pharmacists. Examination of results from both studies enabled a focus on how the competency standards inform CPD practice. In the survey administered in 2012, 91% (n = 253/278) pharmacists reported that they knew their current registration requirements. However, in the survey administered in 2013, only 43% (n = 46/107) reported utilization of the National Competency Standards Framework for Pharmacists in Australia (NCS) to self-asses their practice as part of their annual re-registration requirements. Fewer, 23% (n = 25/107), used the NCS to plan their CPD. This may be symptomatic of poor familiarity with the NCS, uncertainty around undertaking self-directed learning as part of a structured learning plan and/or misunderstandings around what CPD should include. This is supported by thematic analysis of pharmacists’ social media comments. Initial and ongoing competence training to support meaningful CPD requires urgent attention in Australia. The competence (knowledge, skills and attributes) required to engage in meaningful CPD practice should be introduced and developed prior to entry into practice; other countries may find they are in a similar position.

A Curriculum Challenge—The Need for Outcome (Competence) Descriptors

Some outcomes around, for example, communication have been extensively theorised; others such as accountability have been relatively neglected in the teaching and learning literature. The question therefore is: if we do not have a clear understanding of the outcome, can we systematically apply good practice principles in course design such that students are able to achieve the outcomes the community and the profession expect? This paper compares and contrasts the literature around competency outcomes regarding students’ communication skills and the development of accountability and proposes a model to guide the selection of teaching and assessment approaches for accountability, based on the students’ sphere of influence.