Background: Framing questions is a skill that requires expertise, knowledge, guidance and mentoring. It provides structure for deep learning, critical thinking and also promotes interaction and communication. Objective of this study is to analyze the question framing skills of fifth semester medical students on a ‘must know’ area in Pharmacology.Methods: A cross-sectional study was done in the Department of Pharmacology of a Government Medical College in Central Kerala. After briefing about the study, each of the participants was instructed to frame a question which were collected after 15 minutes. The data on different aspects of questions was analysed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 16.Results: Total 130 students, 79 females and 51 males participated in this study. 7 questions were incomplete and excluded from further analysis. From the rest 123 properly framed questions, 106(86.2%) were correct, 10(8.1%) were partially correct and 7(5.7%) incorrect with regards to the task assigned. In this study knowledge as well as application was tested in 50.4% questions, comprehension in 21.1% and application alone in 22.8%. The knowledge dimension tested was factual in 91(74%) and conceptual in 32(26%). Non-hierarchical classification showed 96(78%) convergent and 27(22%) divergent.Conclusions: In this study majority of the participants framed direct short answer questions which reflects factual knowledge indicating their lower-level cognition. Critical thinking and procurement of higher level cognition can be attained by directing them to frame the right question especially in medical education.

Objective: Medical undergraduates learn pharmacology during the second phase of MBBS. Considering the expanding list of drugs and volatility associated with its learning, the objective of this study was to describe the factors that interfere with the assimilation and reproduction of the concepts in pharmacology. Methods: This was a descriptive study done in the Department of Pharmacology of a Government Medical College in Central Kerala for a period of 2 months. Five short answer questions were chosen to elicit responses from the participants in the form of a surprise test. A Google fill out form elicited the perception of the participants about learning during the pharmacology lecture. The data were sorted and entered into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 16 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, USA). Descriptive data were expressed using frequencies and percentages. Results: Of the 148 students, 84 (56.75%) participated in the study. For the surprise test, the mean marks scored were 2.24±0.77 (maximum marks 5). Forty-seven (56%) participants claimed that they were attentive in pharmacology lectures only “sometimes.” The majority of the participants 82 (97.6%) “sometimes” found it difficult to imbibe the concepts in pharmacology. Seventy (83.3%) agreed that definitions are difficult to learn as such. Only 10 (11.9%) disagreed with the statement that a drug’s action cannot be interpreted as its use because sometimes actions can aggravate some diseases. Sixty-one (72.6%) participants had difficulty in understanding the word “rationale.” Five minutes break, continuity of topics, separate question-answer session at the end of class, summarization, a video demonstration of the mechanism of action, providing printed lecture notes, simple explanation, mnemonics to learn, clinical correlation, lectures during morning hours, and team-based quizzes were some suggestions to increase the assimilation of the subject. Conclusion: Participants had a mean score which was <50% of the total score. While the scores for definitions varied the question on uses of drugs fetched similar marks; however, the students had poor performance on the question related to rationale. Ignorance about the meaning of the word “rationale” shows the importance of regular feedback and the use of simple language in understanding the problems faced by the participants in learning the concepts in pharmacology.

Background: Cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) range from mild-to-severe types and occasionally can become fatal. Hence, these incur additional financial burden both to patients and community. Aim and Objective: The aim of the study was to describe the characteristics of CADRs reported to ADR monitoring center (AMC) of a tertiary care center. Materials and Methods: CADRs reported to the AMC over a period of 2 ½ years were retrospectively studied. This study mainly focused on affected age group, gender, various pattern of CADRs, the group and name of drugs causing CADRs, and severity and causality assessment. Results: CADRs contributed 31.6% of the total ADRs reported to the AMC. Among these, 51.7% were females and 40% were of 51–60 years age group. About 37.9% of CADRs were pruritus. Antibacterial drugs were the most common cause of CADRs and beta-lactam antibiotics were responsible for 30% of CADRs. Stevens Johnson syndrome (SJS) constituted 4.9% of CADRs and 20% of this was due to Paracetamol. Drugs were withdrawn in 89% of cases and 85% cases recovered. On causality assessment, 94% were of probable category. Conclusion: Pruritus was the most commonly observed CADR and antibacterial drugs were the most common cause. Beta lactam antibiotic was the most frequent antibacterial drug to cause CADRs. The most common serious CADR was SJS and Paracetamol was the most frequent culprit drug.

No abstract

Background: Short answer question (SAQ) is an excellent tool for assessment. Objective of this study was to understand the practices adopted in answering SAQ, assessment of reliability and validity of SAQ and faculty feedback on valuing SAQs.Methods: A cross-sectional study was done in the Department of Pharmacology of a Government Medical College in Central Kerala from December 2018-January 2019. The study participants were given 10 minutes to answer the two chosen SAQs after which the response sheets were collected and valued by 2 independent examiners. Feedback on correction of the same questions was sought from Pharmacology faculties of various Medical Colleges through online survey. The data were analysed using SPSS software.Results: 100% participants attempted to answer the SAQ ‘Definition of a drug’ but none of them came out with the World Health Organisation definition of drug. For the second SAQ, ‘Two uses of atropine’ around 25(20.8%) participants had written two uses of the drug correctly. The reliability was 0 for ‘definition of a drug’ and 0. 50 (95% CI 0.082-0.702) for ‘Two uses of atropine’ and both the questions had no validity. The feedback on valuing definition and two use of atropine was variable.Conclusions: None of the students wrote definition of a drug correctly and majority gave multiple responses to uses of atropine instead of two valid responses. The short answer questions we tested were found to have moderate to no reliability and no validity. The faculties had variable perceptions in valuing the two short answer questions.