This review focuses on the studies and opinions around issues of transition from the BPharm to the PharmD degree in the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Pakistan and Thailand.The transition to the clinically orientated PharmD degree in many countries was seen to be a means of developing the profession. However, some countries have both clinically-oriented and pharmaceutical sciences-oriented PharmD programme that are designed to meet the needs of their countries. Each country created a different process to handle the transition to an all-PharmD programme, but mostly had the process of school accreditation mandated by the regulatory bodies. The main barrier to the transition in most of the countries was the issue of educational quality. A set of indicators is needed to measure and monitor the impact/outcome of the PharmD degree.Each country has different needs due to the different contexts of health care systems and the scope of pharmacy practice. In order to increase their chances of benefiting from the new programme, academic leaders should critically assess their countries’ needs before deciding to adopt a PharmD programme.

Results. More than half the colleges have been in existence less than 20 years, and the government owns 80% of them. There were 2 paths of admission to study pharmacy: direct admission and central admission system. The doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) programs can be divided into 4 types. Approximately 60% of all teaching staff holds a doctoral degree. Regarding the work balance among teaching staff, around 60% focus on teaching activities, 20% focus on research, and less than 20% focus on patient care services concurrent with real practice teaching. The proportion of student time dedicated to theory, practice, and research in PharmD programs is 51.5%, 46.7%, and 1.8%, respectively. Sites owned by the colleges or by others were used for student training. Colleges followed the Office of the National Education Standards' Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) and External Quality Assurance (EQA), and the Pharmacy Council's Quality Assessment (ONESQA) . Conclusion. This study provides a picture of the current status of curriculum, teaching staff, and students in pharmacy education in Thailand. The curriculum was adapted from the US PharmD program with the aim of meeting the country's needs and includes industrial pharmacy and public health tracks as well as clinical tracks. However, this transition in pharmacy education in Thailand needs to be monitored and evaluated.

BackgroundPharmacy education and pharmacy practice are facing remarkable changes following new scientific discoveries, evolving patient needs and the requirements of advanced pharmacy competency for practices. Many countries are introducing or undertaking major transformations in pharmacy education. The Thai pharmacy curriculum has been changed from a 5-year BPharm and a 6-year PharmD to only a 6-year PharmD programme. Curriculum change processes usually involve stakeholders, including both internal and external educational institutions, at all levels. This study aims to understand the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders regarding the transition to an all-PharmD programme in Thailand.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted in Thailand with 130 stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, pharmacy experts, educators, health care providers, patients, students and parents) from August-October 2013. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis.ResultsThree main themes were derived from the findings: 1. influences on curriculum change (e.g., the needs of pharmacists to provide better patient care, the US-Thai consortium for the development of pharmacy education); 2. perceived benefits (e.g., improve pharmacy competencies from generalists to specialists, ready to work after graduation, providing a high quality of patient care); and 3. concerns (e.g., the higher costs of study for a longer period of time, the mismatch between the pharmacy graduates’ competency and the job market’s needs, insufficient preceptors and training sites, lack of practical experience of the faculty members and issues related to the separate licenses that are necessary due to the difference in the graduates’ specialties).ConclusionsThis is the first study to highlight the issues surrounding the transition to the 6-year PharmD programme in Thailand, which was initiated due to the need for higher levels of competency among the nation’s pharmacists. The transition was influenced by many factors. Many participants perceived benefits from the new pharmacy curriculum. However, some participants were concerned about this transition. Although most of the respondents accepted the need to go forward to the 6-year PharmD programme, designing an effective curriculum, providing a sufficient number of qualified PharmD preceptors, determining certain competencies of pharmacists in different practices and monitoring the quality of pharmacy education still need to be addressed during this transitional stage of pharmacy education in Thailand.

Based on this experience of well-informed community pharmacists having proper intention of practice and low control effect, future programme for rational drug use should emphasize education rather than regulation.

BackgroundThai pharmacy education has moved to an all Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) programme. However, there has been no previous research about the perceptions regarding the suitability of PharmD graduates employed in hospital settings, which is the major pharmacy workforce in Thailand.MethodsA cross-sectional survey questionnaire was distributed to 180 hospital pharmacists at the 2013 Association of Hospital Pharmacy (Thailand) conference. This study aimed to explore Thai hospital pharmacists’ perceptions concerning the suitability of the PharmD graduates employed in hospital settings and the competency differences between the Bachelor of Pharmacy (BPharm) and PharmD graduates. Descriptive statistics were used to present the participants’ demographics and their perceptions. An inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the open-ended written answers.ResultsNinety-eight valid responses were included in the data analysis (response rate of 55.6 %). The majority of the respondents (76.5 %) felt that the PharmD graduates were suited for the hospital setting and addressed its need for more professionals working in pharmaceutical care and with multi-disciplinary teams. Approximately 55 % of respondents agreed that there were competency differences between the BPharm and PharmD graduates. Major themes emerged in response to the open-ended written answers showing that PharmD graduates had high competency in patient care services and readiness to work, particularly in large hospitals, due to their training to work in specialised areas (e.g., special clinics, ward rounds). However, PharmD graduates require more training in health promotion and humanistic skills and need the system to promote the role of PharmD in pharmaceutical care.ConclusionsPharmD graduates were suited for hospital settings. However, there were concerns regarding the suitability of the PharmD graduates for the community hospital and primary care hospital settings because of their insufficient training in health promotion and disease prevention. Half of the respondents perceived PharmD graduates as having higher competencies in clinical activities and being more prepared to work than BPharm graduates. However, the other half of the respondents perceived the competency of both pharmacy qualifications as being similar, as PharmD graduates provide non-clinical activities similar to BPharm graduates due to the high workload in dispensing services and the shortage of hospital pharmacists, which prevent PharmD graduates from providing direct pharmaceutical care services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0471-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.