Enhancing the value of pharmacists through augmented...

Competency Standards Project

Enhancing the value of pharmacists through augmented competency standards and targeted

professional practice standards (I)

Final Report

31 October 2003

PO Box 21, CURTIN ACT 2605 Tel: 02 6283 4777 Fax: 02 6285 2869

www.psa.org.au

Enhancing the value of pharmacists through augmented competency standards and targeted professional practice standards (I)

Final Report – 31 October 2003

2

Acknowledgement

This project was funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing as part of the Third Community Pharmacy Agreement Research and Development Grants Program.



3

Contents

1. Executive summary 4

2. Introduction 6

3. Methodology 7

4. Literature review 8

Comment 10 5. Considerations 11

(a) How the document will be used 11 (b) Adherence to ANTA guidelines 11 (c) Structure of this document compared to earlier versions 12 (d) Association of competencies with the profession’s practice standards 13

6. Validation 13

7. Presentation 13

8. Results 14

9. Detailed outcomes 15

10. Conclusions and recommendations 17

Appendix 1 — Details of project structure, terms of reference and meeting dates 18

A1.1 Authors 18 (a) Project Team 18 (b) Project Advisory Group 18 (c) Project Reference Group 19 (d) Meetings 20

A1.2 Overview of project structure 21 Appendix 2 — Brief descriptions of the component parts 22

Enclosure — Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003 24



4

1. Executive summary

The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia was granted funding in 2002 by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing as part of the Third Community Pharmacy Agreement Research and Development Grants Program to conduct a project entitled Enhancing the value of pharmacists through augmented competency standards and targeted professional practice standards (I) on behalf of the pharmacy profession.

This final report provides a summary of key issues and stages of the project but does not provide a comprehensive report of the project outcomes. The output of the project is the new publication entitled Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003.

Two earlier document — Competency Standards for Entry-Level Pharmacists in Australia 1994 and Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2001 — were used as a basis for the development of the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003. In this process, the following issues were taken into consideration:

the guidelines of the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) for the production of Training Packages;

its coverage of all areas of current and developing practice;

the concept of ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ competencies;

the possibility of some pharmacists’ practice being restricted to a particular area or areas of professional service; and

the recommendations of the February 2000 Final Report of the National Competition Review of Pharmacy, with respect to Recommendations 16(g) and 18 concerning the initial registration of pharmacists and assuring their continuing competence for re-registration.

The Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003 has been significantly revised and incorporate a considerable number of important changes to the 2001 document. These include:

a considerable increase in the number of Units, generally achieved by changing the Elements of the earlier document to be Units in their own right, and combining them into Functional Areas;

the development of new Elements and Performance Criteria for each new Unit that will make for easier and more precise assessment of competency in that Unit;

the introduction of sets of ‘supplementary’ Performance Criteria for many Elements, to reflect the fact that some pharmacists must practise at a higher level of competence to provide some services;

the association of the relevant Professional Practice Standards with appropriate Functional Areas, so that users of the document can identify the personal competencies associated with the relevant practice standard; and

the suggestion of a number of ways that a range of users (including registration authorities, credentialling bodies, providers of pre-registration training and continuing pharmacy education (CPE), universities, employers and pharmacists) might apply the document.



5

In summary, it is envisaged that the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003 might be used for:

initial and restoration of registration;

pre-registration training;

re-registration;

retention of registration while not practising;

credentialling for the provision of specific services;

employment, including the preparation of documents such as job descriptions and selection criteria; and

guiding continuing professional development.

It is envisaged that users of the document will need to select the competencies applicable to particular areas of practice. Depending on the service(s) or roles involved, individuals may need to be competent only in some Units and not others, and/or to attain competency in some Units or Elements at the level of Supplementary Performance Criteria.

It is however considered that all pharmacists for as long as their names remain on the Register of pharmacists, no matter whether or not they are practising, will need to maintain their competency in Functional Area 1 – Practise pharmacy in a professional and ethical manner, and Functional Area 2 – Manage work issues and interpersonal relationships in pharmacy practice. In this regard, Functional Areas 1 and 2 may be taken to be the core competencies for all pharmacists, with the remainder being dependent on the area of practice being undertaken by an individual.

The Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003 is to be regarded as a dynamic document that will need regular review as pharmacy practice develops or practice standards change. It is recommended that:

all potential users of the document now put into place procedures to apply the document in the ways suggested, as well as developing other ways to use it;

as experience is gained with the application of the document, users should propose additions or amendments to the document so that it truly reflects the up-to-date competencies required for the various types and levels of current practice;

the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia should continue to be the caretaker of the competency standards for the pharmacy profession and the point of contact for all suggestions for amendment or addition, and to keep all users advised of important developments with the document; and

the document should be again formally reviewed in 2009.



6

2. Introduction

The Project’s task was to revise and update the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2001 (the “2001 document”) which had been based on an earlier document — Competency Standards for Entry-level Pharmacists in Australia 1994 (the “1994 document”) — to better reflect current and emerging pharmacy practice and to relate it to the professional practice standards used by the profession.

The 1994 document had been produced with the limited focus of describing the competencies required by people who wished to become registered as pharmacists in Australia.

Although it thereby described the extent of current pharmacy practice in which new registrants were expected to be competent, it was constrained to the extent that the competencies so described were of a general nature required at entry into the profession and practice. It did not attempt to describe the higher levels of competency needed to be attained by pharmacists whose practice was restricted to a confined area of practice or provide the competencies required for some emerging pharmacy practice areas.

The 2001 document was developed from the 1994 document to make it more generally applicable to all pharmacists, wherever they practised and at whatever level. However, some pharmacy organisations and registering authorities asked that the following issues needed to be more fully taken into account:

the guidelines of the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) for the production of Training Packages;

coverage of all areas of current and developing practice;

the concept of ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ competencies;

the possibility of some pharmacists’ practice being restricted to a particular area or areas of professional service; and

the recommendations of the February 2000 Final Report of the National Competition Review of Pharmacy, with respect to Recommendations 16(g) and 18 concerning the initial registration of pharmacists and assuring their continuing competence for re-registration.

All of these matters were considered during the project. While most of the material of the 2001 document could be used as the initial basis of consideration, the content has been expanded considerably and major changes were made to the presentation of the material.



7

3. Methodology

The content of the document was developed in a number of stages.

1. The organisations representing the interests of pharmacists, the schools of pharmacy and the pharmacy registering authorities were invited to provide comments on any aspect of the 2001 document with which they had concern and to advise of any areas of established or developing practice that were not covered, or not covered adequately, by that document.

2. A literature review was undertaken.

3. One of the consultants [Alistair Lloyd, who was in New Zealand on another task], spent a day with officers of the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand discussing that Society’s progress in developing ‘practitioner level’ competencies.

4. The Project Team received a briefing on the National Community Pharmacy Training Package developed by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, so that the Team could be informed of the requirements of the Australian Qualifications Framework and the Australian National Training Authority for the production of such packages. This information was also provided to members of the Project Advisory Group.

5. The members of the Project Team considered the responses of the bodies approached in step 1 as well as the relevant literature and over a number of meetings developed a proposal for the content and presentation of the document.

6. This proposal was presented at a meeting of the Project Advisory Group, during which a number of amendments and improvements were suggested.

7. The Project Team members drafted a number of versions of the document, consulting amongst themselves, with members of the Project Reference Group and with other pharmacists with particular expertise in certain specialised and/or developing areas.

8. The final version was reviewed at a meeting of the Project Team and Project Reference Group. A number of improvements were suggested.

9. The Project Team incorporated these suggestions into the Final Draft of the document.

10. The Final Draft was presented to a meeting of the Project Advisory Group at which a number of further suggestions for improvement were made.

11. The Project Team finalised the document in the light of these suggestions.

12. The document was forwarded to all stakeholder organisations with a request that they endorse the document.

13. The appropriateness of the ‘supplementary’ performance criteria were validated by a small panel of pharmacists.



8

4. Literature review

The following documents were considered:

American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. Competence Assessment Tools for Health System Pharmacists. 1998.

Annabel B. The challenge of reality. Pharmacy Review Sep 2001, 33-5.

Anon. Requirements for adverse drug reaction reporting. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1975.

Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care. First national report on patient safety. Canberra: ACSQHC; 2001 Aug.

Australian National Training Authority. Training Package Development Handbook, 2001.

Australian Nursing Council Incorporated. ANCI National Competency Standards for the Registered Nurse and the Enrolled Nurse, May 2000.

Australian Pharmacy Conference. Report of Melbourne meeting, Oct 2001.

Australian Qualifications Framework Advisory Board. Implementation Handbook, 2002.

Brushwood DB, Belgado BS. Judicial policy and expanded duties for pharmacists. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2002; 59:455-7.

College of Pharmacists of British Colombia. Framework of Professional Competence, Mar 2002.

Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. The national strategy for Quality Use of Medicines. Canberra: CDHA; 2002.

Davies JG et al. Competency-based approach to fitness for practice. Pharm J 2002; 268:104-106.

Farhan F. A review of pharmacy continuing practice development. Pharm J 2001; 267:613-5.

Hancox D. Making the move from continuing education to continuing practice development. Pharm J 2002; 268:26-7.

Harrson A. Competence is the key to safe supervision and delegation. Pharm J 2001; 267:89-91.

Lamb J. Prepare yourself for mandatory CPD. Pharm J 2002; 268:723-5.

Merrigan D. Internal approach to competency-based credentialling for hospital clinical pharmacists. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2002; 59:552-8.

National Association of Pharmacy Regulating Authorities [Canada]. Professional Competencies for Canadian Pharmacist at Entry to Practice, Apr 1997.

National Association of Pharmacy Regulating Authorities [Canada]. Model Standards of Practice for Canadian Pharmacists, Apr 1998.

National Association of Pharmacy Regulating Authorities [Canada]. A National Model Continuing Competence Program for Canadian Pharmacists, Apr 2000.



9

National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Principles for best practice in clinical audit. Radcliffe Medical Press, 2002.

National Prescribing Centre, NHS [UK]. Competencies for pharmacists working in primary care, Apr 2000.

Ontario College of Pharmacists. Standards of Practice, Jan 2001.

Pharmaceutical Journal Report, Council meeting, Society moves nearer to mandatory continuing professional development. Pharm J 2001; 267:527-32.

Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Pharmacy competency: The key to good patient outcomes from pharmacy. Jul 2000.

Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Professional practice and the Privacy Act. Canberra: PSA; 2001.

Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Professional Practice Standards. Canberra; PSA; 2002.

Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand. The Competence Framework Standards for Comprehensive Pharmaceutical Care and Pharmaceutical Review Services, 2001.

Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand. Competence Standards for the pharmacy profession – Pharmacist level, Jan 2002.

Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand. Competence Standards for the pharmacy profession – Practitioner level DRAFT, Jan 2002.

Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Community Pharmacy Assistants Training Package, 2002.

Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Quality Care Pharmacy Program [including updates to Apr 2003].

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education [United Kingdom]. Benchmarking Academic standards – Pharmacy, 2002.

Royal College of Nursing Australia. The feasibility of a national approach for the credentialling of advanced practice nurses and the accreditation of related educational programs, Final report. Jul 2001.

Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Competencies of the future pharmacy workforce. Phase 1 report, Apr 2003.

Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia. Johnstone JM, Vienet MD, eds. Practice Standards and Definitions. Melbourne: SHPA; 1996.

Steel S. Competence-based practising rights – we need the right tools to deliver the goods. Pharm J 2002; 268:505.

UK Medicines Information. A Competency Framework for medicines Information, Sep 2001.

World Health Organisation. Ottawa charter for health promotion. Geneva: WHO; 1986.



10

Comment

While all of the above documents were informative, it was noted that only New Zealand is attempting to develop competency standards that are applicable to the whole profession of pharmacy, including the concept that practitioners need to be able to demonstrate different levels of competency according to the area in which they practice.

The Pharmaceutical Society in New Zealand (PSNZ) has made considerable progress in developing at least the first and second level (of three projected levels) of competencies and has commenced to implement them. Their experience in actually applying their competencies towards the registration and re-registration of pharmacists was particularly helpful. In particular it demonstrated that any document that is produced needs to be able to be interpreted relatively easily by practising pharmacists so that they can apply it for re-registration and continuing professional development procedures.

The cooperation of the PSNZ in sharing their finished and draft documentation and in frankly discussing the successes, difficulties and failures in the implementation of their system is gratefully acknowledged.

In Australia, the nursing profession has developed competencies for more than one level of practice. They have produced two documents which outline this, one produced by the Australian Nursing Council and the other by the Royal College of Nursing. The Project Team analysed these documents and found some inconsistencies between them that may have become confusing when put to use. A view was taken that if more than one level of competency were to be described, it would be best for internal consistency and useability, that a single document be produced.



11

5. Considerations

The Project Team and the Project Advisory Group gave consideration to a number of matters underlying the preparation of the final document. The key issues are outlined below.

(a) How the document will be used

The members of the Project Team recognised that the final document would not be used for the preparation of training packages in the same way that the ANTA guidelines might envisage. Rather, the expectation is that it will be used by a wide range of users for a broad range of purposes. These are set out in full in the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003 [see Enclosure].

In summary, the competency standards document might be used for:

initial and restoration of registration;

pre-registration training;

re-registration;

retention of registration while not practising;

credentialling for the provision of specific services;

employment, including the preparation of job descriptions, etc; and

continuing professional development.

It is envisaged that users of the document will need to develop the competencies applicable to particular areas of practice. Depending on what that is, individuals may need to be competent only in some Units and not others, and/or to attain competency in some Units or Elements at the level of ‘supplementary’ Performance Criteria.

It is however considered that all pharmacists, no matter whether or not they are practising will need to maintain their competency in Functional Area 1 – Practise pharmacy in a professional and ethical manner, and Functional Area 2 – Manage work issues and interpersonal relationships in pharmacy practice for as long as their names remain on the register of pharmacists. In this regard, these may be taken to be the core competencies, with the remainder being dependent on the area of practice being undertaken by an individual.

Section 1.9 of the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003 outlines how users may be able to best apply the document for various purposes.

(b) Adherence to ANTA guidelines

The Project Team nevertheless decided that as the ANTA format and layout is widely accepted and understood, ANTA’s guidelines for the presentation of competencies should be followed as far as practicable. Thus the competencies have been developed by describing them in Units, Elements, Performance Criteria and Range of Variables [see Appendix 2 for a short description of these terms].



12

However, it was noted that underlying the competencies for a profession like pharmacy there is a considerable body of specific academic knowledge required to be applied to all areas of practice, as well as an expected high level of language, literacy and numeracy. Under ANTA guidelines, it would be usual to set these matters out in the Range of Variables section under each Unit. As this would have resulted in a large quantity of repeated information, it was decided to include a specific section [Section 2 of the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003] that describes the levels of knowledge, language, literacy and numeracy that underpin all the Units. Setting out these matters in a separate section also highlights that competency to practice pharmacy is as dependent upon the extent of tertiary academic learning required as the effective application of the acquired knowledge and skills.

(c) Structure of this document compared to earlier versions

The Project Team used two earlier versions of Competencies for Australian pharmacists, ie. the 1994 and 2001 documents, as the basis on which to start their work. It was decided that the matters to be taken into account in this Project [see Introduction in the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003] required a complete review of the way the document was to be structured.

The earlier documents had a small number of competency Units compared to those included in this document. The Project Team considered that the aggregation of competencies into either seven or eight Units caused a number of difficulties, including:

providing the degree of detail required to allow it to be used properly for the proposed purposes; and

making an assessment of the Unit.

It was therefore decided that in this version the subject matter covered in the earlier Units should be broken up into much smaller Units, which would be grouped into Functional Areas of Units relating to generally similar activities. Thus this version of the Competencies now contains 29 Units grouped under 8 Functional Areas.

The Project Team had regard for a large number of new and emerging areas of practice identified by the stakeholders that were found to involve new Elements and/or Performance Criteria. The Range of Variables for each Unit indicates many of these practices and also demonstrates the need to provide for a higher level of performance in some circumstances. Accordingly, many Elements now have ‘supplementary’ Performance Criteria that describe the extra level of competency needed to provide some practices at a higher level of performance.

The document indicates how these ‘general’ and ‘supplementary’ Performance Criteria might be used to set the level of competency required for particular practices [see Section 1.9.1 of the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003].

Consideration was given to there being two documents — one containing only the general Performance Criteria and another, the ‘supplementary’ Performance Criteria. On consideration, particularly the situation with the nursing profession [see Comment under the Literature review section] this idea was discarded, because doing so would have made the document more complex and difficult to use.



13

(d) Association of competencies with the profession’s practice standards

The Project Team had been asked to clearly identify the difference between personal competencies to be attained by individual pharmacists and practice standards that apply within the practice settings, and to indicate their interrelation. This has been outlined in Section 1.2 of the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003.

The Project Team considered that the most effective way of relating competencies and practice standards was to direct users of the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003 to the cross linkages between the two by making an explicit statement in the preamble to each Functional Area. The user of the document is thus able to link the competencies with relevant practice standards.

6. Validation

Although not included in the original project application, the Project Team sought to validate certain aspects of the final document — particularly in certain areas of specialised practice and with respect to the allocation of some of the Performance Criteria into the ‘supplementary’ category.

Though it was hoped that a more comprehensive validation might have been possible, the validation was completed by firstly seeking comments from Reviewers and then undertaking a review with a small panel of pharmacists with varying levels and scope of experience.

The validation process demonstrated substantial consensus amongst participants giving weight to the view that the distribution of performance criteria between ‘general’ and ‘supplementary’ reflects current practice.

7. Presentation

Preparing competencies for a dynamic profession, that includes traditional and evolving areas of practice, and the concept of advanced practice in many of these areas, is necessarily complex and detailed. Significant consideration was therefore given to the presentation of the final publication, in an effort to make it as ‘user-friendly’ as possible.

Accordingly the Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003 is presented in a way that a person who wants to obtain a general overview need only have regard for the white pages which includes an abridged version of the Functional Areas. Those who wish to apply the competencies for a particular purpose will need to use the full description of the Functional Areas printed on the coloured pages.



14

8. Results

The final document has made a considerable number of important changes to the 2001 document.

It has:

considerably increased the number of Units, generally by changing the Elements of the Units in the earlier document to become Units in their own right, and combined into Functional Areas;

developed new Elements and Performance Criteria for each Unit that will make for much easier yet precise assessment of competency in that Unit;

introduced for many Elements, sets of supplementary Performance Criteria to reflect the fact that some pharmacists must practice at a higher level of competence to provide some services in practice;

associated relevant Professional Practice Standards with various Functional Areas, so that users of the document can identify the personal competencies associated with the relevant practice standard; and

suggested a number of ways that a range of users (including registration authorities, credentialling bodies, providers of pre-registration training and continuing pharmacy education (CPE), universities, employers and pharmacists) might employ the document.

The achievements of the project was described briefly in a poster presented at the recent joint 63rd Fédération Internationale Pharmaceutique Pharmacy World Congress and 9th Pharmacy Australia Congress [see Appendix 3].



15

9. Detailed outcomes

The following are the detailed outcomes according to the approved methodology in the project application.

1.1 Establishment of the project

The reference group [Project Reference Group] and steering committee [Project Advisory Group] were established and convened, and the Project Officers recruited.

1.2 Initial scoping phase

Job analysis and scoping exercise: The gaps in the current competency standards were identified by:

consulting the pharmacy organisations representing the interests of pharmacists and the registration authorities;

consulting with pharmacists with acknowledged expertise in a number of existing and emerging areas of practice; and

conducting an extensive literature review.

Identification of targeted professional services: New areas of practice were identified during the above procedures and relevant competencies incorporated in the Evidence Guides and Range of Variables of all relevant Units.

1.3 Framework for competency standards and professional practice standards

The framework for presenting the competencies was developed by the Project Advisory Group after it analysed the range of options. This has resulted in the production of Units of a much more precise nature than in the previous documents, grouped into a number of Functional Areas. This has also resulted in more precise and measurable Performance Criteria and Evidence Guides being prepared, with ‘supplementary’ Performance Criteria written to reflect a higher level of performance being required by those practitioners who wish/need to practice at a higher level of service.

The document explains the difference between competency standards and quality standards — it integrates competency standards with professional practice standards by referencing the latter to the appropriate Functional Areas.

This report makes recommendations for the document to be kept up-to-date as well as for a full review being undertaken after a reasonable period of experience [see Conclusions and recommendations].

1.4 Competency Standards

Competency review and development: The document has been completely re-written in the light of the scoping exercise and the recommendations of the Project Advisory Group. It includes both well established as well as emerging practices.

As far as possible it has been written in accordance with the ANTA guidelines. As the document is intended to have uses other than for the awarding of vocational education



16

training awards, absolute compliance with ANTA guidelines was not considered necessary or even appropriate.

‘Core’ and ‘non-core’ competencies have been recognised by the adoption of the concept of ‘general’ Performance Criteria and ‘supplementary’ Performance Criteria.

Dissemination of new competency standards: The final competency standards document has been printed in accordance with contract no. 2001-049 (as amended) and is included with this report [see Enclosure]. Copies are being disseminated to all stakeholders who have been asked to keep the document under active consideration during its application in order to provide constructive feedback for its further development and to promote the existence of the document to enhance the status of the pharmacy profession.



17

10. Conclusions and recommendations

As with the 1994 and the 2001 documents, the revised document, Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003, is to be regarded as a dynamic document that will need regular review as pharmacy practice develops or practice standards change.

It is recommended that:

all potential users of the document now put into place procedures to apply the document in the ways suggested, as well as developing other ways to use it;

as experience is gained with the application of the document, users should propose additions or amendments to the document so that it truly reflects the up-to-date competencies required for the various types and levels of current practice;

the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia should continue to be the caretaker of the competency standards for the pharmacy profession and the point of contact for all suggestions for amendment or addition, and to keep all users advised of important developments with the document; and

the document should be again formally reviewed in 2009.



18

Appendix 1 — Details of project structure, terms of reference and meeting dates

A1.1 Authors

The Project was managed and project materials written by a Project Team, consisting of officers of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and consultants with a background in developing competencies for professionals.

The Project Team was advised by a Project Advisory Group consisting of representatives of the major stakeholders — the organisations that represent the interests of pharmacists, pharmacist registering and regulating authorities, the schools of pharmacy of Australian universities, consumers and government.

For efficiency of administration, the Project Advisory Group devolved a smaller group, the Project Reference Group to undertake some tasks on its behalf. This Reference Group consisted of members of the Advisory Group who represented organisations more actively involved in the use of competency standards.

The membership and role of each of these groups are outlined below.

(a) Project Team

Role

1. To consult with and respond to directions and suggestions of the Project Advisory Group.

2. To develop the drafts of the competency standards document.

Membership

Mr Bill Kelly (Project Director — to July 2003) Mr Alistair Lloyd AO RFD ED (Project Consultant) Ms Kerry Deans (Project Consultant — to May 2003; Project Director — from July 2003) Ms Kylie Woolcock Dr Kay Sorimachi Dr Kay Stewart (Reviewer) Ms Sue Jacobs (Reviewer)

(b) Project Advisory Group

Role

1. Provide leadership and guidance to the Project Team through provision of comments, advice and feedback.

2. Provide feedback from respective organisations, expeditiously obtain its views about any particular matters that may be referred from time to time, and assist in associated consultative processes in the project.

3. Assist the Project Team to ensure organisational concerns are identified promptly and addressed appropriately to contribute to satisfactory progress of the project.

4. Ensure advocacy and dissemination of project information to the board of respective organisations and its constituents.



19

5. Consider strategies to ensure the competency statements cover new areas of practice and specialisation and articulate appropriately to the practice standards adopted by the profession.

6. Provide advice on the distribution and implementation of the final document.

Membership

Ms Susan Poole / Mr Michael Dooley (Association of Hospital Pharmacists) Mr Paul Gysslink (Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia) Prof Peter Carroll / Ms Deane Dight (Australian College of Pharmacy Practice) Mr Dipak Sanghvi (Australian Institute of Pharmacy Management) Prof Bruce Sunderland (Committee of Heads of Pharmacy Schools of Australia and New Zealand) Ms Kathy Mott (Consumers’ Health Forum of Australia) Mr Steve Marty (Council of Pharmacy Registering Authorities) Ms Mary Collins (Pharmaceutical Society of Australia) Ms Helen Matthews (Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia) Ms Jenny Bergin (The Pharmacy Guild of Australia) Ms Jessica Graves / Mr Bill Kelly (Australian Association of Consultant Pharmacy) Dr John Primrose (Department of Health and Ageing)

All representatives were asked to keep the governing body of the organisation they represented fully and regularly briefed of progress with the document, so that the views and input of that governing body could be regularly available, in order that final endorsement by that body could be achieved promptly when sought.

(c) Project Reference Group

Terms of Reference

1. To act as the preliminary review group through provision of comments, advice and feedback in a timely manner.

2. Consider competencies required for new and emerging practices including the concept of core and non-core competencies and areas of specialisation or advanced practice in the profession.

3. Provide advice on the distribution and implementation of the final document.

Membership

Prof Bruce Sunderland (Committee of Heads of Pharmacy Schools of Australia and New Zealand) Mr Steve Marty (Council of Pharmacy Registering Authorities) Ms Mary Collins (Pharmaceutical Society of Australia) Ms Helen Matthews (Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia) Ms Jenny Bergin (The Pharmacy Guild of Australia)



20

(d) Meetings

The following meetings were held —

Project Team

1 – 20 Jun 2002 2 – 11 Jul 2002 3 – 17 Jul 2002 4 – 24 Jul 2002 5 – 20 Sep 2002 6 – 6 Feb 2003 7 – 12 Mar 2003 8 – 15 Apr 2003 9 – 20 May 2003 10 – 26 May 2003 11 – 4 Jun 2003 12 – 6 Aug 2003 13 – 27 Aug 2003

Project Advisory Group

1 – 27 Sep 2002 – Canberra 2 – 1 May 2003 – Melbourne

Project Reference Group

Consultation with this Group was conducted mostly by e-mail communication.

One Working Group meeting was held in Melbourne on 12 Mar 2003 attended by the Project Team and some members of the Reference Group.

Validation

Initial comments were received by e-mail and fax communications.

Validation meetings were held on:

1 – 27 Aug 2003 2 – 17 Sep 2003 3 – 18 Sep 2003



21

A1.2 Overview of project structure

(NB: Some changes in membership occurred over the course of the project.)

Third Community Pharmacy Agreement Research and Development Grants Program

Project Team Project Director Bill Kelly Kylie Woolcock, Kay Sorimachi Project Consultants Alistair Lloyd, Kerry Deans

PSA National Council

Project Advisory Group AHP: Susan Poole APESMA: Paul Gysslink AACP: Peter Carroll AIPM: Dipak Sanghvi CHPSANZ: Bruce SunderlandCHF: Kathy Mott COPRA: Steve Marty DHA: John Primrose PSA: Mary Collins SHPA: Helen Matthews PGA: Jenny Bergin

Project Reference Group CHPANZ: Bruce Sunderland COPRA: Steve Marty PSA: Mary Collins SHPA: Helen Matthews PGA: Jenny Bergin

Review Consultants Sue Jacobs, Kay Stewart

Stakeholder organisations



22

Appendix 2 — Brief descriptions of the component parts

The information presented here has been extracted from ANTA documents Process for Training Package Development and Training Package Development Handbook (Part 2 Sections 1 & 2).

Domain/Functional Area

A competency area.

Units

The title of a general area of competency.

The smallest component of achievement that can be recognised nationally.

Deal with discrete functions or define key activities.

Represent competencies which, when applied in the work situation, can logically stand alone.

Consideration should be given to the following attributes of Units:

a) Breadth — should reflect broad based expression of the application of knowledge and skills, be useful for recognition of the competency, and facilitate its use across a range of settings;

b) Size — a uniform approach to size is needed throughout and it should be useful and manageable for the purposes of recognition and assessment;

c) Transferability — must be flexible enough to be used in a variety of specific contexts; and

d) Interrelationships between Units — Units deal with discrete functions but may logically benefit by being assessed together.

Are expressed in ACTIVE form.

Unit Descriptor

Expands on the intent and purpose of the Unit.

Elements

Describe observable behaviours, actions or outcomes that contribute to a Unit and are demonstrable and assessable — they should not be task lists.

Are building blocks that continue the description of the key purpose of the Unit.

Describe aspects of competency that are wholly relevant to the Unit.

Should not cover optional or specialist requirements — these can be covered in range statements or specialist units.

Are expressed in ACTIVE form.

Performance Criteria#

Specify the required level of performance.

Represent the behaviour you would expect to see if the competency is applied effectively.



23

Evaluative statements that specify what is to be assessed and the required level of performance — specify the activities, skills, knowledge and understanding which provide the evidence of competent performance.

Should not be treated as separate discrete functions in assessment but should all be covered in assessment in an integrated way — evidence guides can assist this.

Range of Variables/Range Statement#

ANTA Definition (for Range of Variables): Identifies the range of contexts and conditions to which the Performance Criteria apply.

Specifies the contexts and conditions to which Performance Criteria apply.

Relates to the Unit as a whole.

Contextualises the competency by defining its boundaries.

Assists in providing a focus for assessment.

Provides a link to knowledge requirements or underlying language, literacy or numeracy skills.

Provides links to enterprise (eg. policies and procedures) or legal requirements.

Evidence Guide#

ANTA Definition: Part of a Unit of competency designed to guide assessment in the workplace or institution.

Relate directly to Performance Criteria and Range of Variables.

Their purpose is to guide assessment of the Unit.

It must refer to:

a) Critical aspects of evidence to be considered — relate to the particular knowledge and skills that are essential to performance;

b) Concurrent or pre-requisite relationship of Units — interrelationships should be clearly stated in the Evidence Guide;

c) Underpinning knowledge and skills — should focus on those inherent to the Unit, thus clarifying the Performance Criteria;

d) Resource implications — particularly in relation to assessment;

e) Consistency of performance — and its impact on determining the method of assessment;

f) Context of assessment — eg. workplace or simulated environment;

g) Key competencies.

# N.B: It is important to ensure that the connections between the Performance Criteria, Range Statement and the Evidence Guide are explicitly stated and that the three reinforce each other to give a clear specification of the competency.



24

Enclosure — Competency Standards for Pharmacists in Australia 2003

Enhancing the value of pharmacists through augmented...

Documents

Transcript of Enhancing the value of pharmacists through augmented...