Sandra Salter

Effectiveness of E-learning in Pharmacy Education

Over the past 2 decades, e-learning has evolved as a new pedagogy within pharmacy education. As learners and teachers increasingly seek e-learning opportunities for an array of educational and individual benefits, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. This systematic review of the literature examines the quality of e-learning effectiveness studies in pharmacy, describes effectiveness measures, and synthesizes the evidence for each measure. E-learning in pharmacy education effectively increases knowledge and is a highly acceptable instructional format for pharmacists and pharmacy students. However, there is limited evidence that e-learning effectively improves skills or professional practice. There is also no evidence that e-learning is effective at increasing knowledge long term; thus, long-term follow-up studies are required. Translational research is also needed to evaluate the benefits of e-learning at patient and organizational levels.

Demonstration of epinephrine autoinjectors (EpiPen and Anapen) by pharmacists in a randomised, simulated patient assessment: acceptable, but room for improvement.

BackgroundSuccessful treatment of anaphylaxis in the community relies on early and correct use of epinephrine autoinjectors. Community pharmacists supply these devices and have a crucial role teaching patients how to use them. Supply of epinephrine autoinjectors in Australia increased 70-fold in the past decade. New EpiPen and Anapen autoinjectors were launched in Australia in 2011 and 2012, with the potential to cause confusion. However there is no information about how pharmacists demonstrate epinephrine autoinjectors to patients. Therefore the aim of this study was to assess real-world community pharmacist demonstrations of EpiPen and Anapen. We also sought to identify consultation-based predictors of accurate demonstration.MethodsDemonstration accuracy was assessed in simulated patient visits to 300 randomly selected pharmacies. Pharmacists were asked by the simulated patient how to use original EpiPen, new-look EpiPen or Anapen, and assessed against the relevant Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) Action Plan for Anaphylaxis. Other anaphylaxis advice provided by the pharmacist was also recorded. Accuracy was analysed descriptively. Binary logistic regression was used to identify predictors of accurate demonstration.ResultsAll 300 pharmacies were visited. Of 250 pharmacist demonstrations, 46 (18.4%) accurately demonstrated all four steps on ASCIA Action Plan. Failure to state ‘do not touch the needle’ (74.8%) or ‘massage injection site’ (68.8%) reduced accuracy. However 163 (65.2%) accurately demonstrated the three steps required to inject epinephrine (no difference by device, p = 0.15). Associations with accurate demonstration were: checking if the patient had an anaphylaxis action plan (odds ratio, OR = 16.1; 95% CI: 3.86-67.3); stating to call an ambulance after use (OR = 4.0; 95% CI: 1.44-11.1); or explaining side effects of epinephrine (OR = 4.5; 95% CI: 1.48-13.4).ConclusionsIt is critical that anaphylaxis patients know how to use their prescribed epinephrine autoinjector correctly. Pharmacists have acceptable rates of EpiPen and Anapen demonstration accuracy, although more is needed to improve this. Those who pay attention to the need for action plans, emergency care after epinephrine use, and informing patients about the side effects of epinephrine may have better knowledge about anaphylaxis, and in turn significantly improve demonstration accuracy.

Pharmacists' response to anaphylaxis in the community (PRAC): a randomised, simulated patient study of pharmacist practice.

Objective To evaluate how community pharmacists manage patients with anaphylaxis. Design A randomised, cross-sectional, simulated patient study of community pharmacist practice. Setting 300 metropolitan pharmacies located in Perth Australia, randomised to three groups of 100 pharmacies. Each group corresponded to a different epinephrine autoinjector: original EpiPen, new-look EpiPen or Anapen. Participants 300 pharmacies were visited with 271 simulated patient visits included in the final analysis (88=original EpiPen, 92=new-look EpiPen, 91=Anapen). Outcome measures Primary anaphylaxis preparedness (readiness to treat acute anaphylaxis). Secondary anaphylaxis engagement (willingness to engage the patient in a discussion about their anaphylaxis). Methods Simulated patients approached pharmacists, using a standardised scenario, for assistance with epinephrine autoinjector use and advice about the use of antihistamines in anaphylaxis. Scores for each outcome were obtained based on the number of predefined statements addressed by the pharmacist during the consultation (maximum score=5 for preparedness and 8 for engagement). Results The mean anaphylaxis preparedness score was 2.39 points (SD 1.17). Scores for new-look EpiPen were significantly higher than for original EpiPen and Anapen (2.75 vs 2.38 points, p=0.027; 2.75 vs 2.03 points, p<0.001, respectively). Overall, 17.3% of pharmacists correctly demonstrated the epinephrine autoinjector. The mean anaphylaxis engagement score was 3.11 points (SD 1.73). Scores for new-look EpiPen were similar to original EpiPen and Anapen (3.11 vs 3.32 points; 3.11 vs 2.90 points, both p=0.42). Engagement was associated with preparedness. For each additional engagement point, preparedness increased by 7% (0.357 points; 95% CI 0.291 to 0.424; p<0.001). Conclusions Pharmacists demonstrated reasonable knowledge of anaphylaxis symptoms and emergency care, but had poor epinephrine autoinjector technique and rarely discussed anaphylaxis action plans. Pharmacists who had a more comprehensive discussion about anaphylaxis with patients, were more prepared for anaphylaxis emergencies. Future research should evaluate the nature and significance of errors in pharmacists’ autoinjector technique.

Long-term effectiveness of online anaphylaxis education for pharmacists.

Objective. To evaluate the long-term effectiveness of an Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) anaphylaxis e-learning program compared to lectures or no training. Design. A controlled interrupted-time-series study of Australian pharmacists and pharmacy students who completed ASCIA anaphylaxis e-learning or lecture programs was conducted during 2011-2013. Effectiveness was measured using a validated test administered pretraining, posttraining, and 3 and 7 months after training. Assessment. All learning groups performed significantly better on all posttests compared to the pretest, and compared to a control group (p<0.001). The proportion of e-learners achieving the minimum standard for anaphylaxis knowledge improved from 45% at pretest to 87% at 7 months. Conclusion. The ASCIA e-learning program significantly increased anaphylaxis knowledge. The high proportion of participants achieving the minimum standard at 7 months indicates long-term knowledge change.

The use of Enhancing Quality Use of Medication Self-Reported Questionniare (EQUIM-SRQ) among mental health consumers: a pilot study

Objective: To assess the applicability, interpretability and potential limitations of an adverse event screening questionnaire (the Enhancing Quality Use of Medication Self-Reported Questionnaire [EQUIM-SRQ]) in an Australian mental health outpatient population. Method: Questionnaires were distributed amongst two Australian adult mental health clinics for completion either at the clinic (onsite), or externally (postal option), during March – May 2011. Assistance was offered to participants completing the questionnaire onsite. Clients who were visited in their homes by clinic staff were invited to participate as external participants. Results: Of 160 questionnaires distributed, 29 (18%) were completed. Of those, 22 were completed onsite, and seven were completed externally. Of the questionnaires completed onsite, 11 were fully completed, with 4 participants requiring assistance. A further 11 questionnaires were partially completed, with 2 participants requiring assistance. Of the questionnaires completed externally, 5 were fully completed. Conclusion: Although the response rate was low, the EQUIM-SRQ was applicable, interpretable and acceptable when completed or partially completed questionnaires were assessed. The potential exists to apply the EQUIM-SRQ in further research, and thereafter, clinical practice.

P5: ADRENALINE AUTOINJECTOR CARRIAGE AND STORAGE IN THE AUSTRALIAN ANAPHYLAXIS POPULATION

No consistent trigger for her anaphylaxis could be identified on history or specific IgE testing. Bone marrow biopsy, endoscopies and skin biopsies found no evidence of mastocytosis or mastocytoma. Investigations for anaphylaxis mimics were unrevealing. Multiple medications were initiated to control attacks including ketotifen, montelukast, omalizumab and cyclosporin. A multidisciplinary team including psychiatry, speech therapy, occupational therapy, ENT and nursing, were involved in the patient’s care. The patient was diagnosed with anxiety disorder and caffeine dependence/toxicity (20 coffees per day). She was commenced on quetiapine, and received training in mindfulness and relaxation techniques. Her caffeine consumption was reduced to two coffees per day. Her clinical improvement coincided with implementation of these medications, lifestyle and psychological strategies. In the 6 weeks following discharge, she had one further episode of anaphylaxis; a significant reduction in symptom frequency.