Use of a General Level Framework to Facilitate Performance Improvement in Hospital Pharmacists in Singapore

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate the acceptability and validity of an adapted version of the General Level Framework (GLF) as a tool to facilitate and evaluate performance development in general pharmacist practitioners (those with less than 3 years of experience) in a Singapore hospital. Method. Observational evaluations during daily clinical activities were prospectively recorded for 35 pharmacists using the GLF at 2 time points over an average of 9 months. Feedback was provided to the pharmacists and then individualized learning plans were formulated. Results. Pharmacists' mean competency cluster scores improved in all 3 clusters, and significant improvement was seen in all but 8 of the 63 behavioral descriptors ( p # 0.05). Nonsignificant improvements were attributed to the highest level of performance having been attained upon initial evaluation. Feedback indicated that the GLF process was a positive experience, prompting reflection on practice and culminating in needs-based learning and ultimately improved patient care. Conclusions. The General Level Framework was an acceptable tool for the facilitation and evaluation of performance development in general pharmacist practitioners in a Singapore hospital.

Evaluation of Competences at the Community Pharmacy Settings

“…Although the original GLF document has been based on practice in two areas such as the hospitals and the UK community pharmacies, the professional literature contains evidence of its transferability to other systems and cultures. 12,[16][17][18] The Serbian expert panel initially used the Croatian version of the document due to similarities between the Serbian and the Croatian practice and regulations. The Serbian panel adopted all competencies with high level of agreement regarding the credibility of competencies, 23 similar to the previously published Croatian research.…”

“…Other published studies are usually conducted in a 12-month period (or longer). 11,12,[15][16][17][18] Fifth, during the evaluation of the competencies there sometimes were other aggravating factors impeding pharmacists to fully demonstrate their competencies such as the number of patients, patients who were difficult to work with etc.…”

“…One of the most common models for the evaluation and development of pharmacists' capabilities currently in use in Europe, Asia and Australia 11,12,[15][16][17][18] is described in the General Level Framework (GLF) document. The GLF is an evidence-based framework developed by the Competency Development and Evaluation Group and in synergy with the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) guiding principles for pharmaceutical education.…”

“…Improvements of competencies have been observed in the environments which have implemented the GLF document as a training tool. 11,12,[15][16][17][18] This is the first study that reports the evidence associated with development, implementation and evaluation of pharmacists' competencies in Serbia using a validated professional development framework. The aims of this study are: 1) to show the adaptation process of the GLF document to the Serbian pharmaceutical workforce and regulations; 2) to illustrate the implementation of the Serbian-adapted GLF in a chain of the state-owned pharmacies in the Republic of Serbia, and to evaluate if there is a measurable improvement of pharmacists' competencies and monitoring of the pharmaceutical services provisions.…”

The use of portfolio to support competency-based professional development of pharmacists in a Singapore tertiary hospital

“…To evaluate the acceptability and validity of the GLF as a tool to facilitate and evaluate performance development for junior level pharmacists, observational evaluations during daily clinical activities were prospectively recorded for 35 pharmacists using the GLF at two time points over an average of 9 months (Rutter et al 2012). The key element of GLF was well demonstrated when feedback was provided to the pharmacists and individualized learning plans were then formulated and followed up.…”