Purpose The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the time of day patients administer antihypertensive medications. Secondary objectives were to evaluate medication adherence rates between morning and bedtime dosing and possible barriers to bedtime administration. Methods A single-center, cross-sectional study using a mixed-methods model containing a retrospective chart review and telephone survey was administered to hypertensive patients at a multidisciplinary, private practice clinic. Patients above the age of 18 with a diagnosis of hypertension were eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was the number of patients administering one or more antihypertensive medications at bedtime. Secondary endpoints were medication adherence and potential barriers of adherence to bedtime dosing. Results A total of 139 responses were collected. Most patients (75.5%) administered all antihypertensive medications in the morning, with only 24.5% of patients administering at least one antihypertensive medication at bedtime. Adherence was higher for medications administered in the morning compared to medications administered at bedtime, 87.8% and 79.4%, respectively. Limitations to this study include the single-center design and potential for patient recall and reporting bias when using self-reported data. Conclusion Results of this study suggest that the prevalence of bedtime administration of antihypertensive medications is low. Although self-reported adherence rates were higher with morning dosing compared to bedtime dosing, adherence rates for bedtime dosing were still promising. Future studies should be conducted to expand on existing morbidity and mortality evidence as well as prevalence of and adherence to bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medications.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a sequenced drug knowledge pilot in third professional year students in a capstone course. Methods: A three-phase drug knowledge pilot was conducted in spring 2022. Students completed a total of thirteen assessments, including nine low-stakes quizzes, three formative tests, and a final summative comprehensive exam. Results from the previous year’s cohort (historical control) who only completed a summative comprehensive exam were compared to the pilot (test group) results to assess effectiveness. The faculty spent over 300 h developing content for the test group. Results: The pilot group had a mean score of 80.9% on the final competency exam, which was one percent lower than the control group who had a less rigorous intervention. A sub-analysis was conducted that removed the students who failed (<73%) the final competency exam, and no significant difference in the exam score was found. One practice drug exam was found to be moderately correlated and significant (r = 0.62) with the final knowledge exam performance in the control. The number of attempts on the low-stakes assessments had a low correlation with the final exam score in the test group compared to the control (r = 0.24). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest a need to further investigate the best practices for knowledge-based drug characteristic assessments.

No abstract