Introduction: 360-degree feedback (360df) delivered via a structured, facilitated session is shown to identify opportunities to create a professional development (PD) plan. Studies demonstrate the successful use of 360df for assessment of junior resident pharmacists, however evidence supporting 360df in pharmacist PD is lacking and available 360df tools were not fit-for-purpose. A novel and bespoke 360df tool was developed and evaluated to determine acceptance and pharmacists’ perceptions of 360df for PD.
Methods: The 360df tool was developed with questions aligning to relevant competencies in the National Competency Standards Framework For Pharmacists In Australia 2016. Pharmacist participants sent invitations with the 360df tool to ≥15 colleagues within their professional sphere and undertook self-evaluation with the same tool. A feedback report was generated and discussed between the participant and a trained feedback facilitator, followed by collaborative design of a PD plan. Following self-evaluation, an acceptability questionnaire was employed to determine participants’ acceptability of the 360df tool. The questionnaire utilised an Osgood’s Semantic Differential Scale, containing 12 bipolar adjectives and a ten-point rating scale (where 10 indicates a strong positive response). At completion of 360df, semi-structured interviews were utilised to explore participants’ perceptions of the process and themes were identified through qualitative analysis.
Results: Of 25 participants enrolled, 23 (92%) completed the 360df process. The acceptability questionnaire (response rate 91% [21/23]) returned a mean rating of 7.3/10 (SD 2.1), where median ratings ≥9 indicate participants found the tool fair, beneficial, useful and valuable. Preliminary results from thematic analysis of 23 semi-structured interviews highlight the critical role of facilitated feedback and indicate that pharmacists perceive 360df as useful for PD, provides opportunities for practice improvement and strengthens relationships with interdisciplinary staff.
Conclusion: The bespoke 360df tool was deemed beneficial and valuable, and 360df is perceived by pharmacists as a useful and practice-changing PD process.

Introduction: Few health science schools in India include interprofessional education (IPE) in the curriculum. Including IPE as a core element in the curriculum can improve understanding of professional roles and bridge the gap between the disciplines.
Methods: A prospective interventional study where selected Pharm D and Medical students in their fifth year underwent IPE in select topics (IPE group) whereas the other students attended the regular integrated teaching (IT) included in the curriculum (3 hours/week). The IPE consisted of pre- reading material followed by lectures and case-based modules amounting to 6 hours/week) All the students were provided pre- and post- questionnaires to test their knowledge. The scores of the IPE student group were compared with those of the IT group.
Results: Out of 502 students enrolled in the study, 52 (10.35%) were in the IPE group and 450 (89.64%) students underwent the regular IT program. 76% and 24% of participants were students of undergraduate medicine and Pharm D respectively. The pre-scores for IPE group and integrated teaching group were comparable for all the three topics, heart failure (4.64 ± 0.60 – IPE, 4.47 ± 0.87 -IT, p=0.63), pneumonia (5.56 ± 1.64 – IPE, 5.6 ± 1.18 - IT, p=1.6) and peptic ulcer disease (4.16 ± 0.78 – IPE, 4.27 ± 0.82 – IT, p=0.32). The post scores were higher in the IPE group for all the topics (9.29 ± 0.77 – IPE, 6.60 ± 1.33 – IT for heart failure; 9.38 ± 0.69 – IPE, 6.74 ± 1.27 – IT for Pneumonia; 9.47 ± 0.62 – IPE, 6.52 ± 0.96 – IT for peptic ulcer disease) indicating an enhanced understanding. Most students in the IPE group agreed that their communication with patients and others in the healthcare team improved.
Conclusion: The interprofessional education program was beneficial in enhancing students’ knowledge.

Introduction: Conventionally, students in the Master of Pharmacy program’s Pharmaceutical Microbiology unit submitted written reports to explain lab results. However, these reports often lacked originality and critical thinking, making them less engaging for both students and markers. Further concerns about written responses by generative AI are warranted with this submission format. This study explores the educator experience of replacing written lab reports with a novel Pecha Kucha presentation format to deepen understanding of scientific concepts and enhance preparation and practice of communication skills.
Methods: Students attended three microbiology labs focusing on essential knowledge for pharmaceutical microbiology (aseptic processing principles, effective sterilization, measurement of antimicrobial agent effectiveness, formulation and preservative compatibility). Groups of four students conducted data analysis to create a pre-recorded Pecha Kucha video to explain their lab results to a general audience. Pecha Kucha presentations consist of 20 image-based slides with each slide only shown for 20 seconds (total: 6 minutes and 40 seconds). Autoethnography was used to explore the educator experiences of teaching and assessing this new assessment approach to inform future delivery.
Results: Pecha Kucha videos were assessed. Unlike previous written reports, each presentation was unique and showcased high levels of creativity. Educator’s reflections revealed that the Pecha Kucha format positively influenced student engagement, satisfaction, and improved student’s data interpretation, analysis and communication skill development. The transcripts of each presentation highlighted greater depth of understanding. From a marking perspective, the Pecha Kucha format was easy and quick to assess with a specific scientific content rubric.
Conclusion: Implementing a Pecha Kucha format is an innovative pedagogical strategy that enhances student engagement, fosters creativity and develops presentation skills. This format proved beneficial to both students and markers, as it increased enjoyment, originality, and critical thinking, enriching the teaching and learning experience in the pharmacy curriculum.

Introduction: The Clinical Competency Achievement Tool (ClinCAT®) is a competency framework first piloted in 2010 supporting Australian pharmacists training and development. Advanced Pharmacy Australia (AdPha) facilitates training of ClinCAT® evaluators, equipping them with the skills and confidence to conduct ClinCAT® evaluations within their workplaces. As of November 2024, 1210 pharmacists have successfully completed the training.
In 2024, AdPha conducted its fourth ClinCAT® review, enhancing the evaluator training program with a focus on lifelong learning. This redesign incorporated updated adult education methods and addressed the evolving educational needs of pharmacists, including targeted support for those in remote and rural areas.
Method: The redesign began with analysing the 2024 AdPha Education Needs Survey, providing insights into members' educational needs. To ensure content quality and alignment with adult learning principles, AdPha consulted extensively with educators and ClinCAT® evaluators across Australia. Committed to a flexible, user-friendly online experience, AdPha also researched optimal platforms to improve instructional delivery.
Results: The ClinCAT® evaluator training program was streamlined from a two-day to a one-day format, blending self-paced modules with live virtual learning sessions focussed on simulation role plays. Expert-developed content was integrated into the Articulate e-learning platform, allowing evaluators anytime access to ClinCAT® training materials and resources. To reinforce learning and foster continued development, a follow-up session was scheduled three months after the initial seminar. Additionally, a dedicated AdPha "Community" was established, offering evaluators a space to connect with peers, seek guidance, and receive ongoing support from fellow evaluators.
Conclusion: The redesigned AdPha ClinCAT® evaluator training program reflects a strategic shift towards an efficient, supportive training model. Incorporating adult learning principles, follow-up sessions, and a community platform, to facilitated continued development and lifelong learning. With these updates, AdPha has strengthened its commitment to fostering pharmacists’ professional growth, enhancing the value and accessibility of ClinCAT® evaluation training.

Introduction: Numerous studies have demonstrated the benefits of utilizing mobile health applications (m-health apps), to improve patient care. However, no guidelines exist as a reference for pharmacists when making recommendations of m-health apps to patients. The objective of this project was to characterize the factors that pharmacists and patients prioritize when assessing m-health apps. These factors may help determine pharmacists’ knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in recommending m-health apps to patients.
Methods: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Ten studies were reviewed and analyzed for factors related to using/recommending m-health apps, positive/negative attitudes on m-health app use/recommendations, and confidence/readiness in recommending a m-health app to a patient.
Results: A factor that influenced pharmacists’ knowledge on m-health apps was age. Pharmacists less than 35 years old have better perceptions of apps and their use in patient care. Factors that promote positive attitudes in app recommendation included features such as notifications or reminders, of which their use have improved patient adherence to medication use. Factors that prompted negative attitudes included lack of scientific evidence behind information provided within the app. Other barriers involved a lack of usability, unfamiliarity with using mobile apps, and security concerns. Factors that improved confidence in making app recommendations included whether the app was accessible in various app stores, visually appealing, easy-to-use, and presentation of information in a patient-friendly manner.
Conclusion: From being aesthetically pleasing and user-friendly to being able to improve medication adherence and patient communication, all studies illustrated similar preferred factors in m-health apps. While further studies are necessary to elucidate factors influencing pharmacists’ recommendations of m-health apps, what we learned from the literature can serve as a starting point for future guideline development and continuing professional development.