RESUMO
BACKGROUND: With the expansion in pharmacy education in Saudi Arabia, there is a pressing need to maintain quality assurance in pharmacy programs using several tools. The progress test is a formative assessment tool that can serve to provide information to all stakeholders. This study evaluated the results of a unified progress test that was shared among 15 colleges of pharmacy. METHODS: The progress test was composed of 100 MCQs where 30% of which cover basic pharmaceutical sciences and 70% cover pharmacy practice. The questions were collected from all the 15 colleges of pharmacy participated in the test. The test was administered online to all undergraduate students in the professional programs of these colleges. RESULTS: The overall attendance rate was 80% from the total number of students enrolled in the participating colleges. Mean scores of students in basic pharmaceutical sciences were relatively higher than in pharmacy practice. The assessment results of the students in the unified program learning outcomes among colleges were higher in the domains of knowledge and skills compared to competence domain. There was a significant increment in the mean scores of the students as they progress through the years of the professional program. No correlation was found between the mean scores in the test and the cumulative grade point average (cGPA) of all students regardless of their level. CONCLUSION: The results indicated growth and maintenance of the gained knowledge and skills by the students as they progress through the years of the professional program with consistency in the results among the participating colleges. Sharing a unified test was effective as a valuable tool for the colleges of pharmacy for the purposes of benchmarking and improving the curricula. In addition, it could serve to evaluate learning of students and harmonize knowledge and skills gained by students at different institutions.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin IVIG utilization at King Khalid University Hospital, an 850 bed tertiary care academic center, over a-3-year period. METHODS: Patients who received IVIG in the period from January 2003 to December 2005 at King Khalid University Hospital were identified retrospectively using the hospital computer system. Their charts were subsequently reviewed. We collected data pertaining to patients' demographics, indication of IVIG, dose regimen and physician specialty. Indications were categorized into 4 different categories: US Food and Drug Administration FDA-labeled; off-label recommended as first line; off-label recommended as alternative; and not recommended. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were identified. Intravenous immunoglobulin was given to 109 (35.7%) patients for FDA-labeled indications, 29 (9.5%) patients for off-label recommended as first line indications, 97 (31.8%) for off-label recommended as alternative indications, and 70 (23%) for not recommended indications. The amount of IVIG consumed during the study period was 43.65 Kgs with an estimated cost of $1.75 million, 24.4% of which was considered inappropriate use. Hematologists and neurologists were the most frequent prescribers. CONCLUSION: A significant amount of IVIG was prescribed for inappropriate indications. This had a large financial burden on an already strained hospital budget.
