↓ Skip to main content

The impact of a pilot continuing professional development module on hospital pharmacists’ preparedness to provide contemporary advice on the clinical use of vancomycin

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
The impact of a pilot continuing professional development module on hospital pharmacists’ preparedness to provide contemporary advice on the clinical use of vancomycin
Published in
SpringerPlus, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-1966-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cameron J. Phillips, Alice J. Wisdom, Vaughn S. Eaton, Richard J. Woodman, Ross A. McKinnon

Abstract

Revised international clinical guidelines for the antibiotic vancomycin have changed the advice pharmacists need to provide to medical and nursing colleagues. (1) To determine the self-reported confidence of hospital pharmacists to provide contemporary advice on vancomycin and (2) to evaluate hospital pharmacists' knowledge to provide contemporary advice on vancomycin following a pilot continuing professional development (CPD) module. The study was a prospective two-phase design in an Australian teaching hospital. Phase one: a survey of pharmacist self-reported confidence to eight questions on providing contemporary advice on vancomycin. Responses were recorded using a Likert scales. Phase two: The provision of a pilot online CPD module on vancomycin containing knowledge-based assessment based on a clinical vignette. Likert scales recorded self-reported confidence were reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Knowledge assessment was reported using descriptive statistics. The main outcome measure were the self-reported confidence, and knowledge of pharmacists regarding provision of contemporary advice on clinical vancomycin use. Response rates for surveys; confidence n = 35 (72.9 %) and knowledge n = 31 (58.5 %). Phase one: confidence was highest regarding vancomycin dosing and monitoring with 71.4-81.6 % of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that they were confident in these domains. Respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing were least confident regarding intravenous administration and infusion related reactions, 57.1 and 45.7 % respectively. Respondents who provided advice on vancomycin >10 times in the prior 12 months reported significantly higher confidence in; therapeutic range 1 (IQR 1-2) versus 2 (IQR 1-3) p = 0.02; amending dosage based on therapeutic drug monitoring results 2 (IQR 1-3) versus 3 (IQR 2-3) p = <0.001, and providing general advice to prescribers on vancomycin 2 (IQR 1-3) versus 2 (IQR 2-4) p = <0.009. Knowledge questions were answered correctly post CPD by >75 % of pharmacists. Pharmacists' self-reported confidence to managing vancomycin was variable but generally high. Knowledge scores were consistently high after pharmacists completed a pilot CPD module on vancomycin. These data provides impetus for a randomised controlled study across multiple sites to determine the extent to which pharmacist knowledge on vancomycin can be attributed to completion of an online CPD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 25%
Researcher 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 10 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,473,108
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,261
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,439
of 299,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#113
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.