Publications (2)0 Total impact
-
Article: The extent and characteristics of United Kingdom hospital pharmacists keeping, or not keeping, a professional development portfolio.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to examine the use of continuing professional development (CPD) portfolios by hospital pharmacists. The objectives were to assess the extent to which pharmacists use portfolios in CPD and to examine the attitudes/beliefs which differentiate those who do and do not keep a portfolio. Participants completed two questionnaires: (1) personality traits were examined using the Big-Five questionnaire and (2) a new Pharmacist Portfolio-Engaging Behaviour Questionnaire (PPEBQ) examined the attitudes and beliefs. What constitutes a portfolio was left to the interpretation of the participants, but it was specified that the survey was about participants' views of producing written records of their professional practice for CPD. The setting was hospital pharmacists based in the London area in December 2004. Overall, 134 pharmacists (78%) returned both questionnaires, and 80 stated that they kept a portfolio and 52 stated that they did not (two questionnaires were returned spoilt). There was no significant difference in the age or number of years qualified between those with and without a portfolio. Three personality traits were linked to keeping a portfolio (conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability). Pharmacists with a portfolio scored highly on the perceived behavioural control and behavioural intention scales of the PPEBQ. The Big-Five personality questionnaire is a useful tool to investigate pharmacists' use of a portfolio. Results of the PPEBQ suggested that hospital pharmacists who had a portfolio were concerned with having control over its production. However, the PPEBQ requires further development to improve its reliability. These findings have implications for the educational support of CPD.International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 10/2009; 17(5):299-304. -
Article: The influence of continuing professional development portfolio records on pharmacy practice.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to undertake an in-depth investigation of the influence of continuing professional development (CPD) portfolios on pharmacy practice in the hospital setting. The objectives were to explore the views of pharmacists regarding the contribution of CPD records to professional practice and examine the influence of time and experience on pharmacists' views of recording professional practice. A qualitative design was used to explore the views of pharmacists over 12 months. Pharmacists were stratified according to years of practice in the UK National Health Service (NHS). The methods used involved semi-structured in-depth face-to-face interviews. The interviews were undertaken at three time points. The pharmacists were gathered into three focus groups to test the consistency of the interviews. A purposive sampling method used nine NHS Teaching and Non-Teaching hospital pharmacists in the London area. The participants included four males and five females, who had been qualified for between 0.1 and 21 years. Three key themes emerged for how CPD records contribute to practice: (1) lack of contribution to practice, (2) tacit contribution and (3) mentality. Overall, the recording process made little if any change in professional practice. The more experienced participants were less likely to be able to explain any changes in practice and there were no consistent changes in the views expressed over time. The contribution of CPD recording to enhancing practice in hospital pharmacists was difficult to demonstrate. This study has also illustrated the power relationships involving control mechanisms used by the NHS, and the UK pharmacists' regulatory body, which are discussed in the context of the Panopticon model of self-regulated behaviour. Further research is needed to establish the value of CPD recording.International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 04/2009; 17(2):107-13.
