Piloting an Objective Structured Clinical Examination to Evaluate the Clinical Competency of Pre‐Registration Pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives:The primary aim of the study was to pilot the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) as a method of evaluating the clinical competency of pre‐registration pharmacists trained in Brisbane and nearby hospitals. A secondary aim was to demonstrate that this model of assessment is transferable when used to evaluate preregistration pharmacists from the UK. Method:A 15‐workstation OSCE was adapted from an examination used by the South Thames Clinical Pharmacy Network in the UK. The workstations were reviewed and updated to ensure their appropriateness to clinical pharmacy practice in Australia by a group of practising pharmacists and academics. The OSCE was first completed by pre‐registration pharmacists from Brisbane and nearby hospitals in October 1998 (QLD98) and then in November 1999 (QLD99). A sample of pre‐registration students from the UK who completed the same OSCE in 1998 (UK98) was used as the comparator group. Results:The OSCEs were completed by 10 students in 1998 (QLD98) and 13 in 1999 (QLD99). These results were compared with 52 students who completed the OSCEs in the UK in 1998 (UK98). In general, the students performed well in the ‘medication focused’ activities such as counselling, calculations and chart review. However, they were less successful in more holistic tasks such as drug history taking, information retrieval from medical notes and interpretive calculations. Conclusion:Having successfully piloted the OSCE model it was determined that the method is feasible to administer when students can be brought to an assessment centre. We recommend that the OSCE be considered a key component of assessing clinical competency as part of the registration requirements for pre‐registration pharmacists in Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".