T. Walley et al., CLINICAL-PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS IN UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL-EDUCATION IN THE UK .2. THE FUTURE, British journal of clinical pharmacology, 37(2), 1994, pp. 137-143
1 Changes in undergraduate medical education will involve the developm
ent of a core curriculum of material of essential knowledge and of the
skills for self directed learning both as a student and a postgraduat
e. A survey of departments or individuals teaching clinical pharmacolo
gy and therapeutics was conducted to consider what a core curriculum i
n these subjects might contain and how changes in the school curriculu
m would affect teaching in the future. 2 A questionnaire was developed
based on an American consensus statement on the core curriculum in cl
inical pharmacology and therapeutics. Freetext answers were encouraged
. Twenty-seven medical schools were surveyed; 21 (78%) replied. 3 Item
s of core knowledge (as defined by the American statement) were genera
lly rated important or very important. The most important were conside
red to be (in order): prescribing for the elderly, management of overd
ose and adverse drug reactions. All of these were widely taught (85-10
0%). The least important items were the efficacy and toxicity of nonpr
escription drugs (taught by 35%) and the process of drug development a
nd approval (taught nevertheless by 95%). 4 Core skills were generally
rated less important, and less often taught. It was felt by many resp
ondents that these skills, as defined, were excessively detailed for B
ritish undergraduates and more appropriate for postgraduate education.
5 Core attitudes were rated as being of intermediate importance, but
not widely taught as it was felt that these could best be inculcated b
y example rather than formal teaching. Again, many felt that these att
itudes were inappropriate for a UK core curriculum. 6 Respondents were
asked for their comments on how they foresaw teaching in clinical pha
rmacology and therapeutics changing in response to the development of
core curricula. Many considered that teaching would be further threate
ned by reduced time and resources. Some clearly felt threatened by the
changes and powerless to influence them. Others were very proactive a
nd enthusiastically supported change. Opinions were divided on whether
there was a role for the establishment of a national core curriculum
or guidelines in the UK, and on who should draw up such a curriculum.