Oral Paper Session 9: Transformative curriculum and assessment for future ready graduates
Tracks
Track 1
| Tuesday, July 7, 2026 |
| 4:00 PM - 5:15 PM |
| Salone Grollo |
Speaker
Dr Kathryn Morbitzer
Associate Professor/Assistant Dean
University Of North Carolina Eshelman School Of Pharmacy
The Development of Research Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for the Training of Practicing Pharmacists
4:00 PM - 4:15 PMAbstract
Background:
Research and scholarship are foundational to advancing pharmacy practice, yet variability in research training has resulted in limited consensus regarding expectations for research competence.¹ Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) which define discrete tasks suitable for supervision and assessment, offer a framework to support competency-based research training.² The aim of this study was to develop a set of research EPAs for practicing pharmacists that can inform training and assessment.
Methods:
A mixed-methods, multi-phase study was conducted. In Phase 1, focus groups with pharmacy research experts (n=35) were used to generate a preliminary list of research tasks. In Phase 2, the research team (n=5) refined the tasks into EPAs and completed a modified e-Delphi to assess each statement across a 5-point Likert scale assessing whether each EPA was essential, entrustable and trainable (i.e. modified EQual rubric³). EPAs meeting the prespecified cutpoint (≥4.17) progressed to phase 3, where an e-Delphi process with additional pharmacy research experts (n=33) was used to further evaluate the EPA titles and descriptions based on the modified EQual rubric. EPAs meeting prespecified cutpoints (≥4.0) constituted the final list of EPAs.
Results:
In Phase 1, 34 tasks were identified across seven domains which were further refined in Phase 2 to 22 research EPAs. Further refinements included improved clarity, broader applicability to research for practicing pharmacists, and emphasis on determining the applicability of research findings and generating future research questions. In Phase 3, two of the 22 EPAs did not meet the pre-specified cutpoint resulting in a final list of 20 EPA statements. EQual scores for the remaining 20 EPAs ranged from 4.00 to 4.89.
Discussion/Conclusion:
This study established a research-specific EPA framework for pharmacists that provides a structured approach to defining, teaching, and assessing research competence. These EPAs may support greater consistency in research training and inform future curricular design, assessment strategies, and implementation efforts across pharmacy education.
References:
1. Deal EN. Pharmacotherapy. 2016;36(12):e200–e205.
2. ten Cate O. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(1):157–158.
3. Taylor DR, Park YS, Egan R, et al. Acad Med. 2017;92:S110–S117.
Research and scholarship are foundational to advancing pharmacy practice, yet variability in research training has resulted in limited consensus regarding expectations for research competence.¹ Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) which define discrete tasks suitable for supervision and assessment, offer a framework to support competency-based research training.² The aim of this study was to develop a set of research EPAs for practicing pharmacists that can inform training and assessment.
Methods:
A mixed-methods, multi-phase study was conducted. In Phase 1, focus groups with pharmacy research experts (n=35) were used to generate a preliminary list of research tasks. In Phase 2, the research team (n=5) refined the tasks into EPAs and completed a modified e-Delphi to assess each statement across a 5-point Likert scale assessing whether each EPA was essential, entrustable and trainable (i.e. modified EQual rubric³). EPAs meeting the prespecified cutpoint (≥4.17) progressed to phase 3, where an e-Delphi process with additional pharmacy research experts (n=33) was used to further evaluate the EPA titles and descriptions based on the modified EQual rubric. EPAs meeting prespecified cutpoints (≥4.0) constituted the final list of EPAs.
Results:
In Phase 1, 34 tasks were identified across seven domains which were further refined in Phase 2 to 22 research EPAs. Further refinements included improved clarity, broader applicability to research for practicing pharmacists, and emphasis on determining the applicability of research findings and generating future research questions. In Phase 3, two of the 22 EPAs did not meet the pre-specified cutpoint resulting in a final list of 20 EPA statements. EQual scores for the remaining 20 EPAs ranged from 4.00 to 4.89.
Discussion/Conclusion:
This study established a research-specific EPA framework for pharmacists that provides a structured approach to defining, teaching, and assessing research competence. These EPAs may support greater consistency in research training and inform future curricular design, assessment strategies, and implementation efforts across pharmacy education.
References:
1. Deal EN. Pharmacotherapy. 2016;36(12):e200–e205.
2. ten Cate O. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(1):157–158.
3. Taylor DR, Park YS, Egan R, et al. Acad Med. 2017;92:S110–S117.
Biography
Kathryn Morbitzer is Associate Professor and Assistant Dean within the Office of Professional Education at the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, where she also serves as Associate Director for Strategy of the Center for Innovative Pharmacy Education & Research (CIPhER). Her professional and scholarly efforts focus on advancing pharmacy education through improving teaching and student learning, advancing student individualization opportunities, research skill development, and artificial intelligence integration.
She has authored over 50 peer-reviewed publications, led multiple funded projects, and received numerous teaching and research awards, including the AACP Innovation in Teaching Award, Lenovo Instructional Innovation Award, and multiple UNC Academic Excellence and Instructor of the Year Awards. Kathryn holds a PharmD from Wayne State University and an MS in Biomedical and Health Informatics from UNC-Chapel Hill. She is board licensed in North Carolina and has completed both a PGY1 residency and academic fellowship.
Dr Rachel Mullen
The University Of Liverpool,
Designing a Transformative UK Master of Pharmacy Undergraduate Curriculum
4:15 PM - 4:30 PMAbstract
Background and Aim:
The evolving landscape of United Kingdom (UK) pharmacy practice requires pharmacy graduates to be prepared for evolving clinical, prescribing and patient-facing roles.1 The aim of this work was to co-create a transformative Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) programme with key stakeholders.
Methods:
Stakeholders representing community, hospital, primary care and industrial pharmacy, alongside the statutory education body, employers, patients, pharmacy students and foundation-year trainee pharmacists participated in a series of meetings. Stakeholder perspectives on the programme structure, placement model and assessment approaches were explored to ensure our future graduates are equipped with the knowledge, skills and behaviours required for contemporary practice.
Results:
Stakeholders identified gaps in underpinning scientific knowledge among students, foundation-year trainees and early-career pharmacists. Confidence in communication and clinical reasoning were also highlighted as areas for student development. Stakeholders strongly supported the non-modular approach to curriculum design. Assessments embedding generative Artificial Intelligence in meaningful ways were considered beneficial. A continuum model, sequencing learning from the classroom through simulation to placement-based practice, was recognised as central to scaffolding learning and building confidence. Stakeholders favoured a multisector-rotation model to ensure that students are exposed to a diverse range of pharmacy practice settings. Patients as educators was identified as an essential component of student learning to prepare them for person-centred practice.
Discussion and Conclusion
The co-design of an integrated, non-modular MPharm curriculum ensures student readiness by integrating science and practice, ensures prescribing preparedness through enhanced interdisciplinary learning and supports integrated, authentic assessment reflecting emerging practice. Sustained stakeholder involvement is key to shaping curriculum design, development and delivery, ensuring graduates are prepared to meet evolving clinical, prescribing, and patient-centred demands in UK pharmacy practice.
References
1. General Pharmaceutical Council. Standards for the initial education and training of pharmacists. London: GPhC; 2021. Available from: https://www.pharmacyregulation.org. [Accessed 08/01/2026].
The evolving landscape of United Kingdom (UK) pharmacy practice requires pharmacy graduates to be prepared for evolving clinical, prescribing and patient-facing roles.1 The aim of this work was to co-create a transformative Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) programme with key stakeholders.
Methods:
Stakeholders representing community, hospital, primary care and industrial pharmacy, alongside the statutory education body, employers, patients, pharmacy students and foundation-year trainee pharmacists participated in a series of meetings. Stakeholder perspectives on the programme structure, placement model and assessment approaches were explored to ensure our future graduates are equipped with the knowledge, skills and behaviours required for contemporary practice.
Results:
Stakeholders identified gaps in underpinning scientific knowledge among students, foundation-year trainees and early-career pharmacists. Confidence in communication and clinical reasoning were also highlighted as areas for student development. Stakeholders strongly supported the non-modular approach to curriculum design. Assessments embedding generative Artificial Intelligence in meaningful ways were considered beneficial. A continuum model, sequencing learning from the classroom through simulation to placement-based practice, was recognised as central to scaffolding learning and building confidence. Stakeholders favoured a multisector-rotation model to ensure that students are exposed to a diverse range of pharmacy practice settings. Patients as educators was identified as an essential component of student learning to prepare them for person-centred practice.
Discussion and Conclusion
The co-design of an integrated, non-modular MPharm curriculum ensures student readiness by integrating science and practice, ensures prescribing preparedness through enhanced interdisciplinary learning and supports integrated, authentic assessment reflecting emerging practice. Sustained stakeholder involvement is key to shaping curriculum design, development and delivery, ensuring graduates are prepared to meet evolving clinical, prescribing, and patient-centred demands in UK pharmacy practice.
References
1. General Pharmaceutical Council. Standards for the initial education and training of pharmacists. London: GPhC; 2021. Available from: https://www.pharmacyregulation.org. [Accessed 08/01/2026].
Biography
Dr Rachel Mullen is a Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Education at the University of Liverpool and a registered pharmacist with extensive experience in community and primary care pharmacy. Her work centres on leadership in experiential learning, placement innovation and pharmacy workforce development, with particular expertise in curriculum design across pharmacy sectors. Since joining Liverpool in 2024, she has led the design, stakeholder engagement and placement strategy for the new MPharm, securing its provisional accreditation from the General Pharmaceutical Council.
Rachel’s teaching and scholarship focus on developing “prescriber‑ready” pharmacists able to deliver safe, person‑centred care in complex healthcare systems. She collaborates with NHS partners, community pharmacies, primary care networks and professional bodies to co‑create authentic learning, assessment and placement experiences that build clinical reasoning and consultation skills. A Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, she is an award‑winning educator influencing regional practice in pharmacy education.
Dr Vilius Savickas
Lecturer in Clinical Pharmacy
University of East Anglia
Impact of Simulation-based Education on the Professional Development of Pharmacy Undergraduates: A Longitudinal Study
4:30 PM - 4:45 PMAbstract
Background and Statement of Aim(s): Simulation-based education (SBE) offers students opportunities to develop clinical skills and professional behaviours in safe environments, leading to its increased integration within the Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) courses in the UK.¹ This longitudinal study aimed to explore the impact of SBE on the professional development of pharmacy undergraduates, using a mixed-methods approach.
Methods: Second- and third-year MPharm students participated in structured simulations, each including a prebriefing, simulation activity, and debrief. Quantitative data were collected using Likert-scale SET-M questionnaires² after the first simulation and at the end of each academic year. Qualitative data from semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed to identify key perceptions and learning experiences.
Results: Twenty-six students participated across three time points (baseline in Year 2, end of Year 2 and start of Year 3). Students agreed that SBE helped develop key skills, such as clinical decision-making (75.0%, 94.4% and 100% at three time points, respectively), ensuring patient safety (28.6%, 55.6%, 75.0%) and prioritisation (62.5%, 70.6%, 75.0%). Areas which did not improve following SBE, included understanding of pathophysiology (25.0%, 33.3%, 33.3%) and ability to report information to the healthcare team (62.5%, 66.7%, 58.3%). Thematic analysis revealed four overarching themes: professional identity formation, skill development, emotional and psychological development and authenticity and realism of learning. Simulations were found to reinforce clinical knowledge and foster a reflective and realistic learning environment. The critiques were the high levels of stress and anxiety, and the volume of pre-work. Additionally, the space used was commented to not always be suitable for purpose, reducing the fidelity of the simulation.
Conclusion: SBE was found to enhance key aspects of pharmacy students’ professional development, particularly clinical decision-making, prioritisation, and reflective practice. Ongoing refinement of simulation design, workload, and learning environments is needed to maximise its educational impact.
References
1. Korayem GB, Alshaya OA, Kurdi SM, et al. Simulation-Based Education Implementation in Pharmacy Curriculum: A Review of the Current Status. Adv Med Educ Pract 2022;13:649-60.
2. Bergamasco EC, Cruz D. Simulation effectiveness tool modified (SET-M): adaptation and validation for Brazil. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2021;29:e3437.
Methods: Second- and third-year MPharm students participated in structured simulations, each including a prebriefing, simulation activity, and debrief. Quantitative data were collected using Likert-scale SET-M questionnaires² after the first simulation and at the end of each academic year. Qualitative data from semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed to identify key perceptions and learning experiences.
Results: Twenty-six students participated across three time points (baseline in Year 2, end of Year 2 and start of Year 3). Students agreed that SBE helped develop key skills, such as clinical decision-making (75.0%, 94.4% and 100% at three time points, respectively), ensuring patient safety (28.6%, 55.6%, 75.0%) and prioritisation (62.5%, 70.6%, 75.0%). Areas which did not improve following SBE, included understanding of pathophysiology (25.0%, 33.3%, 33.3%) and ability to report information to the healthcare team (62.5%, 66.7%, 58.3%). Thematic analysis revealed four overarching themes: professional identity formation, skill development, emotional and psychological development and authenticity and realism of learning. Simulations were found to reinforce clinical knowledge and foster a reflective and realistic learning environment. The critiques were the high levels of stress and anxiety, and the volume of pre-work. Additionally, the space used was commented to not always be suitable for purpose, reducing the fidelity of the simulation.
Conclusion: SBE was found to enhance key aspects of pharmacy students’ professional development, particularly clinical decision-making, prioritisation, and reflective practice. Ongoing refinement of simulation design, workload, and learning environments is needed to maximise its educational impact.
References
1. Korayem GB, Alshaya OA, Kurdi SM, et al. Simulation-Based Education Implementation in Pharmacy Curriculum: A Review of the Current Status. Adv Med Educ Pract 2022;13:649-60.
2. Bergamasco EC, Cruz D. Simulation effectiveness tool modified (SET-M): adaptation and validation for Brazil. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2021;29:e3437.
Biography
Vilius qualified as a UK pharmacist in 2011, following an MPharm degree at Kingston University. Since then he has held clinical-academic positions at several UK Schools of Pharmacy and NHS hospitals. He earned his PhD in Clinical Pharmacy from the University of Kent in 2021 and an independent prescribing qualification in cardiology at the University of East Anglia in 2022. Vilius is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (Advance HE). In his current academic role, Vilius is the Deputy Placements Director, focusing on the development and evaluation of experiential learning programmes, particularly in secondary care. He also leads on the development of simulation-based education (SBE) curriculum within the MPharm degree. Vilius is a mixed-methods researcher with experience of both clinical and pedagogic research in areas of atrial fibrillation diagnostics, anticoagulation, SBE and interprofessional learning.
Miss Isobel Scott
Teacher Practitioner- Lead For Clinical Assessment Skills
University Of East Anglia
Evaluating student satisfaction with clinical skills teaching and the Clinical Skills Passport on the MPharm programme
4:45 PM - 5:00 PMAbstract
Background
The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Standards for the initial education and training of pharmacists (1) place increased emphasis on graduates developing competence in clinical assessment, consultation, diagnostic reasoning and physical examination skills. In response to these requirements, the University MPharm programme introduced enhanced clinical skills teaching from September 2024. This included structured face to face skills sessions alongside an online Clinical Skills Passport designed to support consolidation and progression of practical skills.
Aims
This evaluation aimed to assess student satisfaction with the enhanced clinical skills teaching and the Clinical Skills Passport, explore perceived relevance to future pharmacy practice, and examine self-reported confidence in selected clinical skills and preparedness for future clinical roles.
Methods
All Year 3 and Year 4 MPharm students were invited to complete an anonymous online questionnaire in June 2025. The questionnaire used Likert style items to explore satisfaction, perceived relevance and confidence, alongside free text questions to capture qualitative feedback. Ethical approval was not required as this work was classified as a teaching evaluation. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and free text responses were analysed thematically.
Results
Thirty-three students responded from a cohort of 190, response rate 17%. Most respondents 63% (n= 21) reported enjoying the clinical skills teaching, with the majority 90% (n= 30) perceiving the skills taught as relevant to future practice as pharmacists. Self-reported confidence in performing clinical skills in patient facing settings increased following the enhanced teaching. Qualitative themes highlighted the value of a safe and non-judgemental learning environment, enthusiastic facilitators, and the opportunity to practise skills. Suggestions for further development included increased opportunities for skills practice and expansion into additional assessment areas such as respiratory examination.
Conclusion
Although response numbers were limited, findings suggest that enhanced clinical skills teaching supported by an online Clinical Skills Passport is valued by students and may improve perceived confidence and preparedness for future clinical roles. These approaches will be continued and further developed within the MPharm programme.
References
(1) General Pharmaceutical Council. Standards for the initial education and training of pharmacists. January 2021. Accessed 08/01/2026 https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/students-and-trainees/education-and-training-providers/standards-education-and-training-pharmacists
The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Standards for the initial education and training of pharmacists (1) place increased emphasis on graduates developing competence in clinical assessment, consultation, diagnostic reasoning and physical examination skills. In response to these requirements, the University MPharm programme introduced enhanced clinical skills teaching from September 2024. This included structured face to face skills sessions alongside an online Clinical Skills Passport designed to support consolidation and progression of practical skills.
Aims
This evaluation aimed to assess student satisfaction with the enhanced clinical skills teaching and the Clinical Skills Passport, explore perceived relevance to future pharmacy practice, and examine self-reported confidence in selected clinical skills and preparedness for future clinical roles.
Methods
All Year 3 and Year 4 MPharm students were invited to complete an anonymous online questionnaire in June 2025. The questionnaire used Likert style items to explore satisfaction, perceived relevance and confidence, alongside free text questions to capture qualitative feedback. Ethical approval was not required as this work was classified as a teaching evaluation. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and free text responses were analysed thematically.
Results
Thirty-three students responded from a cohort of 190, response rate 17%. Most respondents 63% (n= 21) reported enjoying the clinical skills teaching, with the majority 90% (n= 30) perceiving the skills taught as relevant to future practice as pharmacists. Self-reported confidence in performing clinical skills in patient facing settings increased following the enhanced teaching. Qualitative themes highlighted the value of a safe and non-judgemental learning environment, enthusiastic facilitators, and the opportunity to practise skills. Suggestions for further development included increased opportunities for skills practice and expansion into additional assessment areas such as respiratory examination.
Conclusion
Although response numbers were limited, findings suggest that enhanced clinical skills teaching supported by an online Clinical Skills Passport is valued by students and may improve perceived confidence and preparedness for future clinical roles. These approaches will be continued and further developed within the MPharm programme.
References
(1) General Pharmaceutical Council. Standards for the initial education and training of pharmacists. January 2021. Accessed 08/01/2026 https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/students-and-trainees/education-and-training-providers/standards-education-and-training-pharmacists
Biography
Isobel has worked in a variety of clinical patient facing roles and has experience managing teams in both primary and secondary care. She is a registered GPhC pharmacist, an Independent Prescriber, and is certified by the NHS Centre of Advanced Practice; she is currently in post as an Advanced Clinical Practitioner at the Norfolk and Norwich University. Within the School of Pharmacy at UEA, Isobel has held various roles but is now in post as the Lead for Clinical Assessment Skills, where her teaching focuses on clinical assessment, clinical reasoning, consultation, and prescribing for undergraduate and postgraduate trainees. She is passionate about developing the clinical pharmacist scope to improve patient care and is focusing her research interests on curriculum innovation to support trainees in developing the clinical skills required for their expanding roles within the broader health system.
