Objectives To compare practice pharmacists and community pharmacists based on the use of the General Level Framework (GLF) as a tool to support continuing professional development (CPD). Setting Primary care and community pharmacy in London and the East of England. Method The study pharmacists were self‐selected after distribution of recruitment packs in the study area through local pharmaceutical committees, primary care trusts and two large multiples. Sixty‐nine pharmacists used the framework to support their CPD (42 community pharmacists and 27 with a role in primary care pharmacy). Pharmacists made an initial self‐assessment against the GLF and then used the framework over a 12‐month period to identify learning needs for CPD. Pharmacists identified their desired performance levels for the behaviours in the framework, based on guidance from the project team, and then identified their learning needs by comparing the desired performance level with their self‐assessment. Pharmacists were visited at 4 and 8months by a trained facilitator to support their self‐assessment and progress with CPD. Final self‐assessments were collected at 12months. Assessment ratings for the delivery of patient‐care competencies were compared. Key findings There was no difference in the probability of either group achieving their desired performance level (log rank = 0.023, 1 df, P = 0.878): pharmacists achieved their desired performance level irrespective of their sector of work, demonstrating the applicability of the GLF to the different sectors of practice. Practice pharmacists had a higher aggregated score for the desired performance levels than the community pharmacists (Mann‐Whitney U = 10.500, P < 0.001; median = 133.0 and 119.5 respectively). Conclusion Both groups of pharmacists were able to apply the framework to their practice and use it to support their CPD, resulting in increasing self‐assessed competency scores over time. The higher desired performance level for practice pharmacists compared with community pharmacists conveys a difference, perceived or actual, between the two roles. Irrespective of the difference in desired performance levels, both groups of pharmacists have improved, to meet their level of expectation, over the 12‐month period.

All reviewed treatment options are safe for management of NAFLD in patients with T2DM but long-term histological improvements are minimal. TZDs are efficacious for resolution of NASH and improvements in fibrosis but long-term use is required to maintain these results.

No abstract

Metformin and insulin remain the mainstay of treatment for T2DM in pediatric patients. More robust studies are needed to assist in the provision of evidence-based guidance for the treatment of T2DM in youth.

Background Interprofessional education (IPE) at university level is an essential component of undergraduate healthcare curricula, as well as being a requirement of many associated regulatory bodies. In this study, the perception of pharmacy and medical students’ of remote IPE was evaluated. Methods A series of IPE sessions took place via Zoom and students’ feedback was collected after each session. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analysed. Results 72% (23/32) of medical students strongly agreed that the sessions had helped to improve their appreciation of the role of pharmacists, whereas 37% (22/59) of pharmacy students strongly agreed, reporting a median response of ‘somewhat agreeing’, that their appreciation of the role of general practitioners had improved. This difference was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.0143). Amongst students who responded, 55% (53/97) identified remote teaching as their preferred mode of delivery for an IPE session. Conclusions The survey demonstrated that the students valued the development of their prescribing skills as well as the ancillary skills gained, such as communication and teamwork. Remote IPE can be a practical means of improving medical and pharmacy students’ understanding of each other’s professional roles, as well as improving the skills required for prescribing.