The utility of clinical controversy debates in an ambulatory care elective

Abstract

BackgroundActive learning is an essential component in pharmacy education and has become a focus of governing bodies and pharmacy education organizations. Many strategies exist by which faculty can accomplish active learning in the classroom. MethodsThis study was conducted to determine if clinical controversy debates achieve the course objective to critically evaluate clinical trials and guidelines in order to form and support an opinion regarding a current clinical controversy facing ambulatory care pharmacists today. Debates were based on cases written by instructors, and arguments were based on primary literature identified by students. Students enrolled in an Ambulatory Care Elective responded to a 9-question survey at the completion of the semester, assessing time spent on debate preparation, debate style preference, and assessment of the role of the debates in their learning and skill development. ResultsThere was a 72% response rate (n = 13) from students who completed the course. Results from the survey showed that all students who completed the survey strongly agreed or agreed that the course outcome was met and clinical controversy debates aided in achieving the outcome. Additionally, all students strongly agreed or agreed that the debates improved their ability to apply a clinical trial to a patient and make an evidence-based medicine recommendation. ConclusionThe authors conclude that this study illustrates a useful pedagogical strategy for implementing in-class debates into the pharmacy curricula while also enhancing evidence-based medicine and critical thinking skills.