Reliance on Electronic Drug Information Resources: Pharmacy Students, Residents and Faculty

Abstract

Objectives: To assess how likely pharmacy students, faculty, residents and pharmacists will rely on an electronic device when presented with a specific drug name to research and to identify which electronic devices these four particular groups are most likely to use on a daily basis by including students enrolled in the first, second, or third year didactic coursework attending a four-year Doctor of Pharmacy program; faculty members and residents who were associated with a public research university located in the southwestern United States of America; and the pharmacy professional working in a research hospital type setting. Methods: Questionnaires were administered following three different scenarios. The first involved distributing the questionnaire during regularly scheduled classes to the first-year, second-year, and third-year professional pharmacy students. The second involved distributing questionnaires to the faculty and residents to their respective mailboxes and then collecting them at a later date. And the third scenario involved the project advisor distributing the questionnaires to his colleagues at the University of Arizona Medical Center (UAMC), now known as Banner – University Medical Center (Tucson), and then collecting them at a later date. Results: A total of 262 pharmacy students, 12 faculty, and 17 residents and other pharmacists participated in this study. Almost half of the first-year (44%) students do not work while in pharmacy school, 18% for the second-year students, and 9% for the third-year students whereby those who did work while in pharmacy school obtained more exposure to the various drug names currently available versus those who did not work. When comparing each group, having more experience typically resulted in less reliance on an electronic device. The first-year students, having the least experience, relied on an electronic device the most for the USA (3.1), pulled (3.3), and foreign (3.6) drug categories versus the residents and the working professional group (2.4, 2.4, and 3.0, respectively). The p-values for the USA, pulled, and foreign drug categories were all less than 0.001 (p < 0.001) which equates to all three groups being clinically significant. However with the fictitious drug category, the p-value was not clinically significant (p > 0.05). When analyzing the seven drugs currently marketed in the United States (USA), each group (P1, P2, P3, faculty, residents and pharmacists) knew the most about Cialis (2.5, 1.7, 1.2, 1.2, and 0.8) and Nexium (1.5, 1.1, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.3), respectively, versus the five newer drugs. The p-values for these two drugs showed clinical significance (p < 0.001). Conclusions: With the number of new drugs constantly being introduced to the global market, the pharmacist must typically rely heavily on his or her electronic device to provide optimal patient care, but with experience gained comes less reliance on these electronic devices. Both men, women, and the various groups surveyed had similar levels of confidence when reaching for their electronic device. Repeated use of these electronic devices can potentially increase the pharmacist's knowledge about a particular new drug whereby one day, it becomes common knowledge about the drug being dispensed (e.g. Cialis and Nexium). These electronic devices are now included as one of the more common tools found inside the typical pharmacy nowadays alongside the counting tray and spatula. Unfortunately these electronic devices do have their own personal limitations and the pharmacist must still use his or her own clinical judgement.