CLINICAL-PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS IN UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL-EDUCATION IN THE UK .2. THE FUTURE

1 Changes in undergraduate medical education will involve the development of a core curriculum of material of essential knowledge and of the skills for self directed learning both as a student and a postgraduate. A survey of departments or individuals teaching clinical pharmacology and therapeutics was conducted to consider what a core curriculum in these subjects might contain and how changes in the school curriculum would affect teaching in the future. 2 A questionnaire was developed based on an American consensus statement on the core curriculum in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. Freetext answers were encouraged. Twenty-seven medical schools were surveyed; 21 (78%) replied. 3 Items of core knowledge (as defined by the American statement) were generally rated important or very important. The most important were considered to be (in order): prescribing for the elderly, management of overdose and adverse drug reactions. All of these were widely taught (85-100%). The least important items were the efficacy and toxicity of nonprescription drugs (taught by 35%) and the process of drug development and approval (taught nevertheless by 95%). 4 Core skills were generally rated less important, and less often taught. It was felt by many respondents that these skills, as defined, were excessively detailed for British 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 by example rather than formal teaching. Again, many felt that these attitudes were inappropriate for a UK core curriculum. 6 Respondents were asked for their comments on how they foresaw teaching in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics changing in response to the development of core curricula. Many considered that teaching would be further threatened by reduced time and resources. Some clearly felt threatened by the changes and powerless to influence them. Others were very proactive and 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.